Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PWLLHELI HARBOUR (AMENDMENT) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

HIGHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (WESTER BRIDGE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Norway (Import Ban)

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to ban imports from Norway.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): No.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am surprised and disappointed by that response from the Government, who clearly do not take the matter seriously. I hope that the Minister has at least done me the courtesy of reading the publication that I sent him about the slaughter of whales by Norway.
Is the Minister aware that public opinion in this country demands something more positive from the Government? Selective sanctions against Norway would let that country know precisely how strongly people in this country feel. We want the Government to do something, rather than just ignore the subject. Is the Minister aware that Londoners will take action by telling the Norwegians precisely what they can do with their Christmas tree this year—and that we will not be suggesting that it is put in Trafalgar square?

Mr. Eggar: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that individual consumers will give Greenpeace's call for a boycott all the support that it deserves.

Sir Roger Moate: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of the great bond of friendship that exists between this country and Norway? Will he further remind the hon. Gentleman that we must make due allowances, whatever differences of opinion we might have, for the different cultures and traditions of members and potential members of the EC? Is it not in our interest, and in the interest of the hon. Gentleman's cause, that we promote closer friendship and trade with Norway?

Mr. Eggar: There is concern about the resumption of commercial whaling in Norway. I am sure that people will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend said.

Post Office

Ms Estelle Morris: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the application of European Community regulations and developments to Post Office activities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): There are at present no European Community regulations which apply specifically to the Post Office, although the European Commission published a range of proposals in its green paper on the development of the single market for postal services in June 1992, which have been subject to widespread consultation. There is also a considerable range of European Community directives which have some bearing on the activities of the Post Office and with which the Post Office seeks to comply.

Ms Morris: Does the Minister accept that Britain, with the most profitable and efficient postal service in Europe, is well placed to benefit in a single market? Does he agree that the Post Office needs a clear assurance about its future organisation, freedom to invest in and develop services, and a firm commitment to universal delivery? When will the Government come off the fence and give the Post Office the backing it deserves?

Mr. McLoughlin: There is no question about giving the Post Office the backing that it deserves. Indeed, the Post Office had a good year last year, as its results showed. We have consistently made it clear that the maintenance of a nationwide delivery network with delivery to every address in the United Kingdom is of paramount importance. I agree with the hon. Lady that there are certainly opportunities for the Post Office within the single market.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend renew the assurance that has been given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that pensioners will be able to cash pensions at post offices as well as perhaps through banks, if they wish to do so? Will he join me in deploring the Labour party's continuing campaign to frighten pensioners into believing that they may not be able to cash their pension at a post office?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. No pensioner or other benefit recipient will be forced to use automated credit transfer. We have made it clear that those people who wish to collect their benefits from post offices will be able to do so. Indeed, as we have said several times, the amount of business transacted through the post offices on behalf of the Government increased in each of the past three years.

Mr. Beggs: Is there anything in European Community regulations to prevent the delivery free of charge of talking newspapers to the blind and partially sighted? Will the Minister guarantee today that, if proposals are made to privatise post office services, such a service will continue to be provided free to the blind and partially sighted?

Mr. McLoughlin: I know of no proposals from the Commission that would put any restrictions on the service that is provided. As I have often said, when we come to


make our full decisions on the Post Office, the House will be the first to be informed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point that he has raised will be dealt with carefully.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Irrespective of what the EC has to say about post offices, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, in any changes, due regard will be given to the importance of post offices in rural areas? In many rural areas, the post office is the only shop that is there giving a service to rural people. Perhaps, in any future changes to post offices, we could consider widening the services that they can provide to rural people.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right about the provision of post offices in rural areas. Indeed, my constituency is similar to his in some respects. There are many rural post offices. It is worth remembering that most rural post offices are in private hands and have a great deal of flexibility in the services that they can provide.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister explain how he can square his claim that the Government back the Post Office with the Government's instruction to the Post Office to treble the pay-out that is clawed back to the Treasury? Does he recognise that the Post Office can achieve such a dramatic increase only if it shoves up the price of stamps? Is he aware of the rumours that that is what the Post Office intends to do next month? Does he appreciate that, if it does so, the Government will have imposed a new stamp tax which will shove up the price of sending a letter for everyone who uses the Post Office?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall not go into the details of the price rises that were inflicted by the Post Office between 1974 and 1979. The Post Office is an efficient organisation, and it has made a return to the taxpayer. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might welcome that.

Export Statistics

Mr. Pickles: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in total exports from the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1993 relative to the first quarter of 1992.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton: The volume of United Kingdom exports rose by 6·6 per cent. between the first quarter of 1992 and the first quarter of 1993. Thanks to the efforts of our exporters, exports grew faster than imports over this period, despite poor economic conditions in our main markets. I trust that the whole House will join me in congratulating our exporters on that impressive achievement.

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend will be aware that the headquarters of the Ford Motor Company is in my constituency. Is he aware that Ford has played an important part in exports and that, in particular, 37 per cent. of its production of transit vans now goes for export? Does he agree that that is a remarkable achievement, considering that Ford now has half the market for that type of good in Britain? Will he congratulate the work force and the management on clearly demonstrating that if Britain produces the right goods at the right price, they will sell anywhere?

Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It shows what a good place the United Kingdom is to do business. I certainly congratulate the Ford management and the work force on the shop floor on their contribution to the success of that company, which has recently received a Queen's award for export.

Mr. Purchase: Is not the Minister aware that, although the Government have recently admitted their long-term lack of interest in manufacturing, and have only just awakened to the real importance of that sector of the economy, our manufacturers in the west midlands and elsewhere have made heroic efforts in an increased export drive? Does not the Minister know that, for finished goods in the high street in the 12 months to May of this year, imports increased by 23 per cent. and exports by 15 per cent? Is that not a case of too little effort too late from the Government? When will they wake up to the question of our manufacturing sector?

Mr. Hamilton: It is a pity that the Labour party can never welcome good news when it hears it. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, although exports have gone up by nearly 7 per cent. in the most recent quarter, imports have not increased at all, so the trade gap has narrowed. That shows that the Conservative party recognises the advantage of a competitive industry that exports goods. The Labour party wants to load extra costs on business so that we can export jobs.

Mr. Dunn: Whatever shape, form or colour the new Government of the Empire of Japan assumes, will the Minister undertake to make the strongest representations to them about the barriers to British goods entering the Japanese market, which are currently in place and ought to be eliminated as soon as possible?

Mr. Hamilton: I can tell my hon. Friend that there has been significant liberalisation in Japan in recent years, but no doubt there is always scope to do more. I am certainly a vigorous exponent of free trade; if other countries expect access to our markets, they must also expect to give us access to theirs.

Mr. Fatchett: Has the Minister seen the evidence given to the Scott inquiry by Mark Higson, the former Iraq desk officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who told the inquiry that the Government deliberately misled the public and Parliament about their decision to circumvent the arms embargo on Saddam Hussein? Will the Minister confirm the accuracy of that evidence, and is not it clear from Mr. Higson's statement that, yet again, on arms to Iraq and other issues, the Government will deliberately mislead the public and Parliament just to save their own skins?

Mr. Hamilton: Scaremongering to get a headline in the newspaper may be justifiable to the hon. Gentleman, but that is a matter for the Scott inquiry and I shall leave it to the inquiry.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I welcome the fact that the Minister can report some improvement in our export performance, but will he acknowledge that a short-term adjustment to the balance of payments deficit does not deny the fact that Britain has an underlying inability to compete and overcome our balance of payments deficit, and that that will be achieved only if we have a long-term


strategy to build up our manufacturing industry? Will the Minister make a positive statement on how the Government propose to achieve that?

Mr. Hamilton: The Liberal party has had a long-term inability to compete with other political parties, so I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for such an issue. It is a great mistake of Opposition Members to seek to sell Britain short at every opportunity: after all, we have a good story to tell. Manufacturing output is up by 3 per cent., retail sales are up by 3 per cent., exports are up by 7 per cent., for the fifth month in a row unemployment is down, we have the lowest inflation for 30 years. and manufacturing wages costs are down by 3·5 per cent. this year. That is not evidence of an underlying inability to compete, but solid evidence of recovery and the improvement of our economic position.

Alternative Energy Sources

Moss: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards alternative sources of energy.

Mr. Eggar: I propose to make a third order setting a renewables non-fossil fuel obligation for the 12 regional electricity companies in England and Wales, to run for 15 to 20 years as from November 1994 in respect of approximately 300 to 400 MW of new renewables capacity.
I have today placed a document with further details of the proposed arrangements in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office.

Mr. Moss: I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer, which will be warmly welcomed by all involved in renewal energy production. Can he tell the House when the first bids for the regional electricity companies are expected, and when he expects the first projects to become operational?

Mr. Eggar: I thank my hon. Friend for his response—it is indeed an important announcement that I have just made. We are hoping that bids will be submitted as from September, with the first projects becoming operational, we expect, within the next two years.

Mr. Skinner: Until the Government can use this alternative form of energy, instead of using up the small reserves of gas, would it not make more sense to depend more on coal, now that we have heard about the 22 per cent. increase in productivity? The French interconnector link should be stopped, saving six pits, and the rundown of the industry should be halted. The £1·3 billion subsidy should also be taken away from nuclear power. Then we could keep the pits open and keep another 30,000 people in jobs so that they will not have to pick up dole payments.

Mr. Eggar: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be very worried—for once he seems to agree with those on his Front Bench.

Mr. Stern: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement this afternoon will be welcomed by producers and potential producers of energy from renewable sources? Will the new tranches announced today also be available to existing producers of renewable energy or to producers who have been included in previous tranches but have not yet been able to start production?

Mr. Eggar: I am hoping to announce a fourth order in 1995, and a fifth in 1997. Today I give notice of that.
As for projects that have not so far proceeded but which could have been covered by the second order: assuming the correct procedure is followed then they may well be able to benefit from the third order.

Nuclear Power

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current output from United Kingdom nuclear power plants.

Mr. Eggar: In the first quarter of 1993, nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom supplied 21·8 TWh of electricity.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that somewhat delayed reply, which I think shows that the amount of nuclear energy, as a proportion of our total energy requirements, that we are using has not really changed for a number of years. Moreover, the fast breeder reactor programme has been shut down. If I am right, surely it is pointless to go ahead with the THORP facility, as it will only increase the amount of bomb-grade plutonium in the world and will not add to our energy supplies.

Mr. Eggar: It is right to pay tribute to the nuclear industry, which has increased output from its stations, particularly from the advanced gas-cooled reactors, by a considerable amount.
There was a debate in the House on THORP, when the House made its view very clear.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend gently remind Opposition Members that it was part of Labour's great post-war energy strategy to give in to lobbying by industrial vested interests and boffins, and to reject cheaper, proven technologies in favour of complex, untried advanced gas-cooled reactors—the true cost of which was not even known until privatisation? Compounding that by opting for expensive domestic coal instead of cheaper, cleaner gas from which other countries were benefiting surely shows that, although decisions made by markets may not be perfect, they are a great deal less imperfect than decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats.

Mr. Eggar: They are undoubtedly much better than those made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that, in the wake of the announcement yesterday about the closure of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station and the loss of 500 jobs, a positive proposal is being put forward for Trawsfynydd to be adapted as a centre for decommissioning skills, which would enable the technology developed there to be exported to other areas? Will the Minister give a commitment that the Government will do everything they can to facilitate this, in order to provide replacement jobs for those that will be lost from our community?

Mr. Eggar: I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about this, and to Nuclear Electric on a contingency basis, not only about potential plans for the use of the station site but more multi-skilling of the existing work force.
The hon. Gentleman knows that it will be some time before there are any significant job losses, although the details have not yet been released. There will be a phase when considerable numbers of employees will be needed. I know that Nuclear Electric is addressing those issues, and I would urge the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend to enter into discussions with Nuclear Electric's senior management.

Mr. Dickens: Is it not as sure as night follows day that one day gas, coal and oil will be depleted? It is at that time that we shall thank our engineers and scientists for our reprocessing techniques and dry storage. It is very important for the future that we have a long-term nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, and that we are a long-term player.

Mr. Eggar: I hear what my hon. Friend says. There is an important role for renewables, and we shall shortly embark on a nuclear review, when we will look at the future role for our nuclear industry.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the announcement of the closure of Trawsfynydd is the first occasion on which the nuclear inspectorate has closed a power station on safety grounds? The safety authority is now clearly willing to take such tough decisions. In future, the debate about nuclear power in this country will revolve around economic questions, and the size of the subsidy that the industry should or should not receive.
Before the Minister starts on the nuclear review, will he say what guidelines he has given to those carrying out the review, so that we can understand how it will proceed? At the moment, as long as the nuclear industry continues to receive its massive subsidy, there will be suspicion about the calculations that are made about its future and economic viability.

Mr. Eggar: Uncharacteristically, I think that the hon. Gentleman is, by implication, being unfair to the nuclear inspectorate. It is true that this is the first time that a station has been closed because of safety considerations, but the inspectorate has always had rigorous standards, and it is recognised around the world for imposing them. There are a number of issues that have to be considered while we are working towards an announcement on the nuclear review, and the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are among them.

Investment (North-West)

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage inward investment in the north-west.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The Government attach high importance to inward investment and have developed, nationally, a quality service to existing and potential investors. As a result, the United Kingdom is now the preferred European location for direct foreign investment.
In the north-west, my Department provides funding towards Inward, the regional development organisation, which has now achieved more than 150 inward investment successes, representing more than 8,000 associated jobs. Inward works closely alongside local authorities and other organisations in the region, as well as in co-operation with

the English Unit and the Invest in Britain Bureau. It is carrying forward an extensive programme to promote the north-west in key overseas markets.

Mr. Brandreth: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past year alone, three major international companies have come to the city of Chester that might otherwise have gone to Belgium, Malaysia or the United States of America? We very much value the excellent partnership between Chester and the Department of Trade and Industry's Inward team in Manchester. Long may it continue.

Mr. Hamilton: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Not least among the attractions of Chester, of course, is its Member of Parliament. I am delighted to receive my hon. Friend's tribute to the work that so many people do in the north-west do to ensure that the rest of the world knows about the attractions it offers for locating industry.

Ms Eagle: Before the Minister drowns himself in false self-congratulation, what is he going to do, a few days after the closure of Cammell Laird, to ensure that industries which are world leaders are preserved?

Mr. Hamilton: There was no element of falsity in the self-congratulation. We all know that there are problems in certain parts of the north-west. Structural change is bound to bring disappointments such as that which has been felt in the hon. Lady's constituency with the closure of Cammell Laird. We have a wide-ranging programme, however, that will help to bring more jobs to the region, in particular to the Wirral, as well as to other areas that are affected by the long-term decline of certain industries. We cannot, however, set our faces against economic reality.

Mr. Sumberg: May I make a practical suggestion to my hon. Friend? If he wants to encourage inward investment, he should confirm that regional assisted status will continue to apply to Bury and Bolton. Will he have a word with our right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to find out whether an announcement about that can be made before we rise for the summer?

Mr. Hamilton: I will certainly have a word, as I frequently do, with my right hon. Friend. In fact, he is sitting next but one to me on the Front Bench and I am sure that he has heard for himself what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Loyden: The Minister will be aware that the Merseyside economy is based on shipbuilding and the port and has been subject to structural changes. No compensation has been offered, however, for the thousands of jobs that have been lost from Merseyside, not only from the port and shipbuilding but from related industries in the hinterland. When will the Government address that particular problem, so that jobs are created in that part of the world?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman played his full part, as a union militant, in the destruction of Liverpool's reputation as a shipping and port-based economy. He should rejoice in the fact that more traffic is passing through Liverpool port today than in its heyday in the 1950s. Since the abolition of the national dock labour scheme, that port has become competitive again.

New Car Registrations

Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the figures for new car registrations in the United Kingdom for the first six months of 1993.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I welcome the 9·14 per cent. increase in new car registrations in the first six months of this year as compared with 1992.

Mr. Howarth: In welcoming those impressive and encouraging figures, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has noted that virtually every car company has now committed itself to give to charity 30p-plus for every new car registered in the United Kingdom? As a result, more than £250.000 has already been raised for charities by the industry since the start of this year. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Rover group, Peugeot Talbot, Jaguar and others on this pioneering and admirable example of social responsibility in one of our major industries? Will he commend this model of charitable giving to other industries?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the car industry on what he has described as an admirable example of responsibility and charitable giving by companies. I hope that he accepts, however, that I believe that it is best to leave each company to decide how best to discharge its responsibilities in that respect.

Mr. Olner: I welcome the increase in car registrations. Would the Minister care to comment, however, on the plight of workers at the Peugeot Talbot plant in Coventry in my constituency, where 300 will be made redundant this summer because the company is taking work away from the United Kingdom and giving it to French factories? Would he care to comment on the fact that the French already enjoy the benefits flowing from the social chapter, yet they are denied to our workers?

Mr. Sainsbury: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed with the management of the factory its relative competitiveness as opposed to that of the French factories. I f he were to do so, I believe that he would discover that the factory's ability to compete is much improved—

Mr. Olner: What about the social chapter?

Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Gentleman asks a question, he might have the courtesy to listen to the answer.
If the hon. Gentleman asked the management about the social chapter, I think that he would discover that, because of the great improvements in productivity that it has achieved in the past few years, it is able to compete with its French fellow producers of Peugeot cars. If that factory were saddled with the social chapter, there is absolutely no doubt that its costs would go up and it would become less competitive. That seems to he a splendid way in which to destroy jobs in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

KONVER Programme

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if lie will make a statement on the Konver programme and its application to areas without assisted area status.

Mr. Sainsbury: The Foreign Affairs Council this week adopted new regulations allowing areas not designated for objectives 1, 2 or 5(b) to receive under Konver not only European social fund grants but limited European regional development fund grants. The Government intend to make use of that new flexibility in the United Kingdom's 1993 Konver programme.

Mr. Bruce: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on getting that agreement out of the European Commission, as we in Dorset have been asking for that for a long time. I know that he is seeing a delegation from Dorset who will, I am sure, say what we need for Weymouth, Portland and Christchurch in the way of money that results from other than assisted area status. Will he tell us where we can pick up the forms to apply for the new money?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has campaigned vigorously for a fairer basis for the allocation of Konver funds. I have been happy to act on his behalf with the Commission and I am glad that we have succeeded in getting recognition of the merit of the case that he made so energetically. We are working out the basis of regions' dependence on defence industries, as that will be one of the factors for allocating funds. I look forward to receiving an application from my hon. Friend's constituency, as I look forward also to receiving him and the delegation next Monday.

Assisted Areas

Miss Lestor: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer on 23 June to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), Official Report, column 226, if he is now in a position to announce his review of regional policy in relation to the assisted areas map.

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope to announce a new assisted areas map before the House rises for the summer recess.

Miss Lestor: Is not the Minister aware that that is exactly the same answer that he gave last month when the question was put to him, and that we are now in a position of promises, promises, promises? Is he aware that the announcement should be made at a time when the House can properly debate it? Is not he aware of the conjecture and the leaks that have taken place, which mean that local authorities and those wanting to get involved in economic development are finding that difficult? I, for one, think that the delay is nothing short of a disgrace.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad that the hon. Lady has appreciated the consistency in my answers. I have to tell her that we are still awaiting the approval of the European' Commission, which I hope to receive shortly. I am well aware of the points that she has made. That is why I gave the answer I did—I hope to announce the outcome of our review before the House rises for the summer recess.

Mr. Marland: May I add to what has already been said, as my constituents in the Ross-on-Wye Cinderford travel-to-work area are also impatiently awaiting the revision of the assisted area map? May I urge that their case is carefully considered before any final announcement is made, because they, too, will be immensely disappointed if there is any change in status in their area?

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that I will take careful note of what he has said. The case made by that travel-to-work area, as, indeed, every other, has been carefully considered in our review.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recognise the deep unease caused by the rumours that he proposes to extend less help to towns that have more unemployment than they had before? How can he justify asking the Commission to cut regional aid to Darlington, Cardiff and Corby now that they all have more unemployment than they had three years ago? Has not regional aid been cut to the extent that it is now only one third of its level a decade ago? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he cannot solve a bigger problem on a smaller budget?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would expect that the new map will reflect an assessment of structural problems as they are today and not as they were in 1984. That is surely the only fair and honest way of putting forward the map. It is on that basis that we put our proposals to the European Commission.

Competitiveness

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about Britain's international competitiveness.

Mr. Sainsbury: Productivity has risen by 8·7 per cent. over the past year. Inflation is at its lowest level for 30 years and manufacturing output has shown the largest increase for four years. Those are all signs that Britain's industrial competitiveness is steadily improving.

Sir Thomas Arnold: As competitiveness is a race among nations and as that race is getting tougher, will my right hon. Friend outline the particular steps that he proposes to take to reduce the burden on business of regulation from Brussels?

Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that one of the ways to help British business to be even more competitive is to reduce the burden of regulation. That is why I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is taking such energetic action in pursuit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided yesterday over a meeting at which we discussed further progress on deregulation. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to give deregulation and lifting the burden of bureaucracy from business, particularly from small businesses, the highest possible priority.

Dr. Berry: If the Minister is so satisfied with Britain's international competitiveness, will he please explain why last year we had a record trade deficit in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s? The Government have presided over the worst growth rate of any Government since the war.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want anyone to be satisfied with our competitiveness because, whatever stage we may have reached, we can be sure that our international competitors will not be resting. They are also looking at their competitiveness. We find that Britain did particularly badly in the 1960s and 1970s when, for too much of that

time, we followed the kind of subsidy policies that are still so energetically supported by the Opposition Front Bench. The interesting thing about the 1980s is that we did markedly better and. in terms of productivity, we did better than all our major competitors. We caught up a lot of ground, but we still have further to go. That is why the Government will continue to give priority to improving the competitiveness of British industry.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In fully supporting the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) and in supporting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative on deregulation, will my right hon. Friend give me and the House an assurance that, prior to the Government introducing any legislation in future, the implications for our international competitiveness will feature as part of the consideration of that legislation and its implementation?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend just that assurance. That assessment of the impact on companies, particularly small companies, will precede any further regulations. It is perhaps because I am able to give my hon. Friend that assurance that I was interested to note that the Engineering Employers Federation's industrial strategy interim report says of my Department that we
are supportive, positive and helpful and we
the EEF—
are happy to acknowledge this".

Mr. Bell: The House will welcome the Minister's statement that our competitiveness is steadily improving. The Opposition accept and welcome that, as we also welcome the attack on regulation. However, most of the regulations on the statute book are a consequence of 13 years of Conservative Government, and not the consequence of Brussels. If the Department of Trade and Industry's competitiveness unit uses gross domestic product per head as a measure of competitiveness, in accordance with the Department's leagues, we are 18th out of 24 in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league. How does the Minister propose to improve that record with improved investment and improved skills in our work force when we have a shortage of skills and investment?

Mr. Sainsbury: Of course, skills in the work force are an important part of the input into the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry. That is one reason why we have already taken so many measures to raise skills in our work force. Almost all those measures have been opposed by the Labour party; they include the national curriculum, testing, training and enterprise councils, national vocational qualifications, investors in people, national education and training targets and training credits. Those measures have been consistently opposed by the Labour party.

British Telecom

Mr. Bates: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from those wishing to renationalise British Telecom.

Mr. McLoughlin: I know of no such representations to renationalise British Telecom, even from the Opposition Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I am sorry. We still have some people who would like to see that. The Government


are convinced that the privatisation of British Telecom and the introduction of competition into the telecommunications market has been largely responsible for British Telecom's transformation into a highly successful and internationally competitive telecommunications operator.

Mr. Bates: Does my hon. Friend think that that almost complete silence is due to the fact that a three-minute cheap rate telephone call is now half the price in real terms that it was 10 years ago? Is not it due to the fact that there are now 96,000 telephone boxes, of which 95 per cent. are operational, as opposed to 50 per cent. 10 years ago? Does my hon. Friend think that those improving statistics, of which we are all aware, may have been of benefit to people sceptical of the benefits of privatising the rest of the Post Office at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that I have made the Government's position on the Post Office fairly clear in my answers to earlier questions, but he is right. There have been dramatic improvements in the performance of British Telecom, in spite of all the scare stories that we consistently hear from Opposition Members at times of privatisation. There were scare stories that telephone boxes would go. My hon. Friend is right to say that more boxes are in operation; what is more, they are working, which is quite a change from the position 10 years ago. There has been an improvement to the customer and to the country.

Mr. Barnes: What were the costs of the advertisements to encourage people to register for British Telecom shares? Will the Minister have a word with a Home Office Minister to find out how that compares with the money that was spent on encouraging people to put their names on the electoral register? For instance, last year nothing was spent on the latter in Northern Ireland, although a considerable sum was spent there on encouraging people to register for British Telecom shares. Does not that display the Government's incorrect balance of values? They push ahead with privatisation, when people try to grab what they can, rather than being involved in the democratic process.

Mr. McLoughlin: I was not sure from that question whether the hon. Gentleman was telling us that he favoured renationalisation. Since privatisation, the service provided by British Telecom has dramatically improved, and we even see occasional signs of approval from Opposition Members.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the risk from the Labour party is not simply of renationalisation but of other idiocies, such as a windfall tax on profits to cover up its overspending in other areas? Will he draw the attention of the millions of shareholders who subscribed to the successful share offer to the fact that they are likely to be savaged if there is another Labour Government?

Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with my hon. Friend that the supposed windfall tax that the Opposition were talking about would do great damage to British Telecom's future investment. Opposition Members speak with different tongues, however, because only yesterday the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) issued a press release which ended by saying:
These twin reforms, taken together, will benefit every industry, every citizen and every BT shareholder.

I have yet to understand how their proposed windfall tax would benefit shareholders.

Mr. Cousins: Surely the Minister recognises that after many millions of pounds were spent pushing the BT share sale, a few weeks ago a prospectus finally emerged in which BT mentioned six major issues of fair competition and fair regulation, including one on which it is taking the Government to court? In the light of that, does the Minister advise new shareholders to hang on to their shares?

Mr. McLoughlin: Here they go again, totally criticising our intention to create wider share ownership and trying to undermine what has been a very successful share offer. We are proud of the fact that we have returned British Telecom totally to the private sector and we are amazed at the turnaround by the Opposition Members. We are proud of our wider share ownership. We will not do anything to destroy it. The Labour party would.

Mr. Maginnis: Although one welcomes and supports competition in the telecommunications industry, is the Minister content with the fact that Mercury is creaming off the best business while British Telecom continues to meet the need to invest in and service the more remote rural areas, such as my constituency?

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman raises a particular point. Many representations are made to the director general of the Office of Telecommunications. The director general will obviously consider the representations that are made to him. That is a very effective way of doing so. We should welcome competition in the telecommunications industry; it is beneficial to the consumer. Obviously, the director general of Oftel will judge all those matters when he makes his decision.

Deregulation

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on progress in lifting the burden of unnecessary regulation on business.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: At the Prime Minister's progress meeting on deregulation held yesterday, Ministers welcomed progress on specific deregulation measures to reduce the burden on business and agreed to introduce an important deregulation Bill as soon as possible. Ministers also agreed to publish a document called "Working with Business: A Code for Enforcement Agencies" and a report on the operation of EC law in the United Kingdom; to review how duplication between enforcement agencies might be eliminated; to require a small business litmus test of the impact on them of any new regulations; and to set up an eighth task force focusing on charities and voluntary organisations.

Mr. Arnold: I welcome the progress that is being made with the campaign to hack at red tape. Does not it contrast with the legislation, bureaucracy and interference that would follow from the adoption of the social chapter which is supported by two Opposition parties?

Mr. Hamilton: I know that dinosaurs have become much more popular recently as a result of films, but Opposition Members really must get rid of their neanderthal attitudes to the competitiveness of British


industry. It is only by continuing to reduce the burdens on industry that we can take full advantage of international competitiveness, which will ultimately be reflected in increased employment opportunities.

Mr. Turner: Does the Minister accept that millions of people would welcome more regulations, particularly when dealing with companies such as Ever Ready, which has closed a factory in Wolverhampton, with the loss of 80 jobs? A constituent of mine visited Woolworths in Wolverhampton and found on sale Ever Ready batteries that were manufactured in China.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must accept that bureaucracy and red tape do not do business in this country any good at all. The consequence of imposing extra legislative burdens on companies to increase their operating costs would simply make us less competitive. What we should be concerened about in the European Community is not what Mr. Delors called social dumping in moving jobs from France to Scotland, but moving jobs outside the European Community altogether to the deregulated economies of the far east and elsewhere.

Sir Michael Grylls: When my hon. Friend considers deregulation measures, will he consider abolishing the statutory audit? In particular, will he listen to the views of business organisations, especially the Small Business Bureau, which have made it perfectly clear that there is no reason why there should not be total abolition of the statutory audit for all privately owned companies? It serves no purpose to any outside trader dealing with privately owned companies; therefore, let us get rid of it.I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to to do so very soon.

Mr. Hamilton: I am confident that we will be able to announce in due course a relaxation of the current audit requirements on small companies. The results of the consultation exercise in which we have been engaged for some time will be evaluated shortly. I am delighted that my hon. Friend and the Small Business Bureau have made representations to me as part of that consultation process.I hope that we shall he able to announce a radical change, to the benefit of business, in due course.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: As the Minister has had a year to study the Institute of Directors' proposals to abolish 50 licences, including licences in respect of driving instruction, the retail sale of alcohol, the running of theatres and cinemas, and minicabs, will he repudiate the proposals to leave the public without proper protection and ensure that they are not included in his Bill?

Mr. Hamilton: I shall repudiate the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party. They have done nothing constructive to contribute to the debate. There are many ways in which we can ensure effective regulation to preserve the interests of the wider public which do not involve licensing. As part of the deregulation review, we shall be reconsidering all the legislative burdens on business of any kind to ensure that they are proportionate to the benefits that are claimed to flow from them. It can never be in the interests of business or of the people whom business employs to impose unnecessary costs on them.

Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members are pleased to hear about the new initiatives to consult small businesses about the regulations

that bear so heavily on the people who run those businesses? Is he happy with the means of consulting all small businesses? Has he any proposals to improve the consultation process?

Mr. Hamilton: We agreed yesterday that, in future, when we consult before legislation is put before the House, we will first view our proposals from the perspective of small business. Too often in the past, the Government have listened to what big business has had to say and to business organisations, which may not in themselves be wholly representative of all the small businesses that are active in their economic sectors. It is important that small businesses are encouraged because it is from small businesses that big businesses and future jobs will grow.

Domestic Gas Appliances

Mr. Connarty: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to reduce the number of deaths caused by carbon monoxide poisoning in the home from unsafe gas appliances.

Mr. McLoughlin: The number of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning from gas appliances is a matter of concern. That is why I welcome the introduction of the EC gas appliances directive, which sets new safety requirements for gas appliances.

Mr. Connarty: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but it seems highly inadequate given the estimate that each year there are 200 deaths in the home from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by badly installed and poorly maintained gas appliances. Does the Minister share with me and the Council of Registered Gas Installers the concern that there are 40,000 cowboys installing gas appliances, yet CORGI members are the only people legally entitled to do so?
Will the hon. Gentleman bring some influence to bear on the Health and Safety Executive to chase and prosecute the cowboys in what is basically a trade in death, rather than pursuing householders and landlords, which seems inadequate action in the face of such a threat?

Mr. McLoughlin: Any death from carbon monoxide poisoning is tragic. We do hear of a number of such cases, although I do not recognise the number quoted by the hon. Gentleman. My information is that there are between 30 and 40 such deaths a year. However, arguing about the figures does not help. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Safety Executive takes its responsibilities very seriously.

Pit Closures

Mr. Mullin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funding he will provide for British Coal to enable it to prevent pollution of the River Wear caused by the closure of pits in Durham.

Mr. Eggar: It is for British Coal and the National Rivers Authority, in the first instance, to decide what action may be necessary in respect of any threat of water pollution which may be related to any proposed pit closure.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that the NRA is saying that if British Coal were to turn off the pumps at Easington when the pit closes, the River Wear—which


supplies 20 per cent. of the water for the city of Sunderland—would be devastated by pollution? Is he further aware that British Coal is flatly refusing to accept any responsibility for the consequences of turning off the pumps, other than giving 14 days' notice? What is he doing to ensure that British Coal lives up to its responsibilities?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is not entirely accurate.

Mr. Mullin: Oh yes, I am.

Mr. Eggar: No, the hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. If he had read the letter to him from the NRA, he would know that he had misquoted it. As I understand it, the problem relates to pumping issues at pits above Easington that have been long abandoned. It is clear that there would be an issue were pumping and production at Easington to cease. There has been a careful examination of the matter, both by the NRA and by British Coal. There is no question of any rapid decision being taken to cease pumping in that section of the Durham coal mines.
I assure the hon. Gentleman, as he was assured by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment last night, that full consultation is being carried out and there will be appropriate levels of co-operation between British Coal and the NRA.

Research and Development

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policies to encourage United Kingdom manufacturing companies to increase their investment in research and development.

Mr. McLoughlin: The best encouragement that the Government can provide is a stable economic environment with low inflation, low interest rates and low corporation tax, together with selective assistance, such as that provided by the Department in appropriate cases.

Dr. Jones: Are not United Kingdom manufacturing tools twice as old as German tools and three times as old as Japanese tools? Do not British companies spend twice as much on dividends as they spend on research and development? It is no wonder that we have such a massive trade deficit, which is unprecedented in a recession. When will the Government shake themselves out of the complacency shown by Ministers' answers this afternoon and learn from the Japanese and other Pacific rim countries, which are investing massively in research and development? Why do they not start by transferring savings from defence research and development to civil research? If they did, at least the Minister could boast that his Department's budget was somewhat larger than that of the Department of National Heritage.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was trying to talk her question out. The fact remains that industry-funded research and development rose 28 per cent. in real terms between 1981 and 1991. Of the companies questioned by the Confederation of British Industry in an innovation trends survey, 50 per cent. planned to increase their research and development expenditure in 1993, which is very encouraging.

Complaint of Privilege

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised with me, as a possible breach of privilege, the willingness of a court on Tuesday of this week to hear an application based on allegations related to a Bill then before Parliament. The Bill was the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is now an Act.
The right hon. Gentleman complained that proceedings in Parliament were, on that occasion, being questioned in a manner contrary to article 9 of the Bill of Rights. He asked me to give precedence to a motion tomorrow relating to the action of the court in agreeing to entertain Lord Rees-Mogg's application, and referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
I have decided that it would not be appropriate for me to grant precedence to a motion based on this complaint, not least because, at the time to which the complaint relates, the Bill had been passed by this House but was proceeding in another place. It would therefore primarily be a matter for that House to pursue.
I do, however, take with great seriousness any potential questioning of our proceedings in the courts, which is why I have chosen to deliver my decision on the complaint in this way, as the rules entitle me to do, rather than to write privately to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, as would normally be the case.
The House will be aware that, following a recent decision by the House of Lords in the case of Pepper v. Hart, the courts now allow themselves to assess the significance of words spoken in this House during the passage of Bills in order to assist in the interpretation of statutes. That has exposed our proceedings to possible questioning in a way that was previously thought to be impossible.
There has of course been no amendment of the Bill of Rights, and that Act places a statutory prohibition on the questioning of our proceedings. Article 9 of the Act reads:

that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
I am sure that the House is entitled to expect, when the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman begins to be heard on Monday, that the Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the Court.

Mr. Tony Benn: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your statement in response to the letter that I sent you, which was much better than a reference to the Committee of Privileges. You will recall that I expressed my concern explicitly that Lord Justice Watkins and Mr. Justice Auld would be in breach of article 9 of the Bill of Rights were they to hear the case.
Whatever the merits of the Maastricht treaty, you, Madam Speaker, have reaffirmed the historic view that it is not in order for the courts or anybody else to question our proceedings. You have told the courts today, in language that I am sure they will understand, that we do not interfere with their jurisdiction and they do not interfere with our jurisdiction and that the question of judicial review cannot be used as an encroachment of the rights of the House of Commons.
You referred to the Pepper v. Hart case, which purported to give the judges the right to review our proceedings. If this practice is not stopped, it will be open to anyone to seek a court injunction preventing Members of Parliament from doing the work for which they were elected by their own people.
I hope that the gravity of your statement is understood, and that the judges concerned, who are appointed rather than elected—appointed, I might add, by the royal prerogative—will drop the case brought by Lord Rees-Mogg. To proceed after what you have said would possibly constitute a breach of privilege. I believe that your statement of the primacy of the House of Commons—which I would rank with the statement of Mr. Speaker Lenthall—will be a warning to any other person, whether that person is responsible for using the royal prerogative or for using any other powers, that the House is determined to protect the rights of those we represent.

Arts Council (Review)

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Arts Council.
Last December I told the House that I would commission consultants to review the structure of the Arts Council. I subsequently commissioned Price Waterhouse to undertake that review, and I made available to the House on 4 June copies of the working papers that they presented. Their study was a thorough and professional undertaking, which has informed my consideration of the future of the Arts Council, following the transfer of responsibilities for the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils from next April. I have now also had the benefit of advice from the Arts Council itself, and the wider arts community has made known its views.
For the purposes of this statement I should like to concentrate on five main areas in turn: the arm's-length principle; the size and composition of the council; relations between the council, its clients and the regional arts boards; the core functions of the Arts Council; and the structure of the organisation. I am writing separately to Lord Palumbo on a number of detailed issues, and I am arranging for a copy of my letter to be made available in the Library.
I reaffirm my commitment to the arm's length principle, and agree that this should be stated clearly so that the respective roles of my Department and the council can be clearly understood. Put simply, I see the primary role of Ministers as setting the council's legal, financial and institutional framework, including appointments to the council and the structure of arts funding and management. Within that framework, the role of the council is to steer the general direction of artistic policy and decide the allocation of funding in line with the exercise of its artistic judgment. It is not for the Government to seek to intervene in matters of artistic judgment, although there can be occasions when Ministers can properly act as a conduit for public and political opinion.
With that degree of independence for the Arts Council in the use of the taxpayer's money comes also the responsibility for explaining its decisions fully and clearly, not least to this House; and I shall be exploring with the chairman ways in which current levels of accountability might be improved. But this analysis of our different roles should not obscure the fact that these are objectives that the council and Ministers share and to which each should contribute for example, in encouraging the widest possible access to the arts. In this connection I should like to stress the importance I attach to the council's role in promoting touring to ensure that the best of our arts reaches the widest possible audience.
As to the size and composition of the council, Price Waterhouse recommended a reduction from its present membership of 20 to 12. I welcome a streamlining of membership. However, I am not finally convinced that a council of 12 members will sufficiently represent all those interests which should be part of the decision-making process. With the Arts Council's endorsement, I therefore intend to move to a council of 16 members, including the chairman and vice-chairman. This will allow the inclusion of five regional representatives, each of the seven art form panel chairman and four independents.
The Arts Council's relationship with regional arts boards and directly funded clients is most important, and the integrated planning system should underpin this; but it is not yet working as it should. I endorse Price Waterhouse's view that all involved should make its success a high priority, and I am glad that the council confirms that it will seek to do so. I am also glad that the council has accepted that the planning and finance functions should come more closely together, and that arrangements for contractual funding should be developed. I am making clear in my letter to Lord Palumbo what my Department requires from the planning process, and the need to develop better performance measures.
That brings me to the core functions of the Arts Council. As I told the House in December, the council has three main functions: providing a strategic policy framework for the arts at national level; managing grant-in-aid; and the monitoring and appraisal of arts organisations. Those were endorsed by the Price Waterhouse report, and I am pleased to restate them today. Price Waterhouse also stressed the council's role as an advocate for the arts. I readily endorse advocacy as a natural component of all the council's work, but I do not see it as a free-standing function. It arises naturally out of the responsibilities of members and senior management.
Price Waterhouse questioned whether the Arts Council's activities are sufficiently focused within its core functions. As public money is involved in supporting the Arts Council's activities, it is important that there should be a clearly identified need for them. I have therefore asked Lord Palumbo over the next two or three months to conduct an analysis of the entire range of activities undertaken by the Arts Council, and to report to me on how they fit in with its core functions. That work will need to reflect the need for market testing, and the specific ideas for streamlining put forward by Price Waterhouse. It will, I hope, focus attention on providing services for which there is a real demand. It must also, of course, reflect the new responsibilities that the national lottery imposes on the council as distributor.
Much of the public interest in the report has been in the three structural options put forward by Price Waterhouse. I do not intend to press for the adoption of a specific option but, as part of the planned activity review, I think that it is helpful to set the Arts Council a benchmark for the level of savings that it might achieve. So I am asking the council to assume an illustrative 10 per cent. reduction in administrative costs, and as part of the activity analysis to make the case for restoring it incrementally in tranches. That will not be an easy process, but it is important for all of us to ensure that overheads are kept to a minimum and as many as possible of the available resources are passed directly to the funding of artistic activity.
The process of change is never easy, but I hope that what I have said today will help to reduce uncertainty by giving those working in the arts community a clearer framework within which to operate. The debate on structures has been prolonged. It should soon be concluded, so that we can all concentrate on the wider issues of the quality and accessibility of the arts themselves.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: These are difficult times for the arts. Does not the Secretary of State realise that his statement will have done nothing to reassure our deeply troubled arts organisations? Once again, he has


offered further delay and procrastination. Is his Department not giving us yet more delay and paralysis, caused by yet more analysis?
All the ideas for restructuring the Arts Council suggested in the Price Waterhouse report are nominally about reducing waste and inefficiency and redirecting resources to arts organisations. The Opposition are wholly in favour of reducing waste and inefficiency and of maximising the sum spent directly on the arts. To that extent, we welcomed the setting up of the Price Waterhouse review, with its remit to examine the structural organisation and staffing of the council. However, the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, having spent about £60,000 on.the report, has opted for even more consultation will cause some disbelief. Does his decision mean that he accepts the charge made by some commentators that the review is partial, ill informed and littered with errors?
We have argued for some time that there is a case for reform of the Arts Council. Nevertheless, it would be wrong, out of enthusiasm for the report, to throw the baby out with the bath water. We believe that the Arts Council has done a notable job over the past 50 years. Its structure has been copied all over the world, and its slow death by a thousand cuts would not be welcomed.
Our real concern about the review is the motive for instigating it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the reforms represent further cost savings for the Treasury and not any commitment to make more resources available to the arts? Will he further acknowledge that, whatever savings these reforms may produce, they will in no way offset the cut of £5 million from next year's arts budget?
Is it not the case that, merely to stand still, the arts need an increase of £10 million on the current spending plans for 1993–94, and if administrative savings are made, will the Secretary of State pledge that the resources released will be actually spent on the arts?
The Labour party has traditionally believed that the Arts Council has an important part to play in the artistic life of the nations of Britain. Has the Secretary of State read the view of the artistic director of the Royal Court theatre, who said last week:
We have an Arts Council that is collaborating in its own suicide and a Government that is not committed to supporting the cultural life of this country".
We note the points made by the Secretary of State about improving accountability. He has promised to consult widely, and hopefully it will be more widely than merely consulting Lord Palumbo.
The Labour party is strongly committed to an enhanced role for regional arts boards which have an important element of local democratic accountability. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if more powers are to be devolved to the RABs, sufficient resources must be available to them to fulfil their enlarged responsibilities? Will he also promise to consult the regions on the appointment of five regional representatives to the Arts Council?
Does the Secretary of State now accept that the meddling interference of the Government and the resulting subservience of the Arts Council have destroyed the last vestiges of any claim to respect the arm's-length principle? As Lord Rix put it after his resignation,

the Arts Council has been viewed with barely concealed contempt by successive Arts Ministers and their Departments … We have had to creep and crawl every year for our funds … When magnanimity has been displayed, we have gobbled up the crumbs with unseemly haste, raising fawning voices in praise of the Minister concerned.
Perhaps that is precisely what the Government want.
The Government have a long history of political appointments and the Arts Council has not been exempt. Property tycoon Lord Palumbo has already brought the worst features of the Government's ideology to the Arts Council. Will the Secretary of State deny this afternoon press reports that Jocelyn Stevens, the well-known custodian of England's heritage, may be appointed to replace Lord Palumbo next year?
The Arts Council allocation decisions announced on 8 July involved a long list of losers: Agenda, the Poetry Society, the London City Ballet, Millstream and Glyndbourne Touring Opera were all chosen for cuts, as were London orchestras. Is the Secretary of State content to see the closure of one and possibly two of London's four orchestras?
Why cannot the Secretary of State get the Arts Council to do its own dirty work instead of appointing a High Court judge to make the decision for it? Can he also tell us why regional theatres appear to have been singled out to be the sacrificial victims of Arts Council cuts? Will he confirm that there is a hit list of 10 regional theatres from which the Arts Council is intent on withdrawing funding with a real threat of closures? Is it by coincidence or design that almost all those theatres are extremely well supported by their Labour local authorities? Does he realise that, if the closures go ahead, it will leave only one major theatre in the whole of the south-west, the Northcote theatre in Exeter?
Has the Secretary of State no sense of shame that this could mean the virtual dismemberment of the system of regional theatres? Is he aware that regional theatres are the backbone of what has made British theatre among the best in the world? Does he know that all the great British actors and actresses, from Gielgud, Olivier and Albert Finney to Antony Sher, Ian McKellen, Julie Walters, Judy Dench and Glenda Jackson, came up through the regional theatre movement? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Andrew Faulds?"] And, of course, Andrew Faulds.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the extent of opposition to the proposed withdrawal of funding from the 10 regional theatres? Does he know that, at the press conference of the Arts Council on 8 July, 10 of the 11 members of the drama board threatened to resign if the Arts Council announced that it and the regional arts boards supported the policy?
Is it not evident that the Government's arts strategy is in complete disarray? Was not The Independent right last week when it said:
Mr. Brooke should realise that chipping away at a few Arts Council posts here or selling off a bit of property there is neglecting the real problem—the Government's failure to give the arts sufficient funds to enable them to plan with stability"?
The Government, who were elected on a commitment to defend arts spending, have ratted on that promise and now propose a savage cut of £5 million from the arts budget. Perhaps the Secretary of State should take time off from predicting a by-election defeat in Christchurch and spend some time sticking up for the arts. If he does not have the will or the clout to do so, he should make way for someone who has.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady asked me at least two dozen questions. I know that she will forgive me if I say that they were variable in quality. I shall resist the temptation to say 17 yeses and seven noes.
The hon. Lady started by referring to what she described as "delay and procrastination". It may be a difference of opinion between Labour Members and Conservative Members, but given that it is the Arts Council that will be affected by the changes, it is much better that the council should be involved in the changes that will be made rather than that it should be imposed by fiat from the Secretary of State.
The hon. Lady referred to some scepticism about the report and suggested that it might contain some errors. I acknowledge that, in the nature of the report that was made—time was of the, essence—some factual corrections need to be made in the working papers. However, none of them will affect the final analysis conducted by Price Waterhouse.
I join the hon. Lady in her praise for the Arts Council over the past 50 years. I disagree with her suggestion that we are involved in the death of the Arts Council. We are involved in its renewal and its future over the next 50 years. The hon. Lady said that the whole exercise was engaged in cost savings. If it had been engaged in cost savings, one would have taken the simple step of telling the Arts Council that it had to make the following savings in its administrative costs. But that is not what we have done.
In terms of the cut in funding of £5 million, it is a fact that the policy that the Arts Council brings to its decisions affects the use of the money. Indeed, the reactions that have already occurred in terms of some of the council's decisions show that other hon. Members share that view. I can give the hon. Lady an assurance that the savings will go to the arts. I am glad that she joins us in our preoccupation with accountability. As she knows, the matter will receive further debate.
In terms of the regional arts boards and the extra responsibilities that will be devolved to them which I announced in December 1992, the Arts Council will be engaged in a review of the ability of the regional arts boards to carry its new responsibilities during the balance of this year. In terms of consulting the regions on their choice of who should represent them—which chairmen of the regional arts boards should sit on the Arts Council —the number that we have selected is such that it will be possible for there to be a rotation on a national basis with reasonable regularity.
One of the profoundest services of the Price Waterhouse report was, by the nature of the people it consulted, both in the Arts Council and in the artistic community, to show that there were misgivings about the way in which the arm's length principle was working. To reassert it, as I have done, is the right step forward. As always, actions speak louder than words.
The hon. Lady quoted the remarks of Lord Rix. All I can say at a personal level in response is that the Minister is not seeking praise for his decisions; he is hoping that history will judge that the decisions were well exercised during his time of office.
I repudiate utterly the hon. Lady's remarks about Lord Palumbo's chairmanship. He has given distinguished service, not only to the council, but to the state. We have not yet begun the process of choosing the next candidate

for the chairmanship of the Arts Council. Therefore, it would not be useful to have a series of questions about future candidates in our remaining time.
On the financial planning decisions for next year that the Arts Council announced on 8 July, the hon. Lady is not fully informed about the orchestras. The function of Lord Justice Hoffman to make recommendations to the music panel of the Arts Council, which will make the decision.
The hon. Lady made a series pf references to regional theatres. I am sure that, as at Question Time last week, they will have been heard outside this House. It is for the Arts Council to make those decisions. The Arts Council made its decisions at Woodstock. It is right that it should stand up and defend and explain them. If I may say so, the hon. Lady is threatening an immediate invasion of the arm's-length principle if she wishes me to substitute my judgment for that of the Arts Council.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The initial exchanges have taken some time and gone rather wide of the statement, so I hope that questions and answers will be brisk.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is not the hon. Lady a misery? Britain is the arts capital of the world and spreads tremendous happiness. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for the arm's-length principle to remain acceptable, it is essential for Arts Council decisions to remain broadly consistent with the public will? That is why it is welcome that my right hon. Friend said that the Arts Council should be made fully and clearly answerable to Parliament for its decisions. Far from death by a thousand cuts, this should have a tonic effect.

Mr. Brooke: It would be wrong for me to judge whether the hon. Lady is a misery. That is a judgment from which I should certainly resile. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reassertion of the importance of the arm's-length principle.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am glad that I can give a broad welcome to the Secretary of State's statement. It amounts to a suspension of final judgment on the present Arts Council, at least until its activities analysis has been presented, as the right hon. Gentleman has asked, by the end of October.
There has been some risk that analysis will lead to paralysis. Many in the arts world have felt that they have been living in the twilight of the Arts Council as it took some of its, apparently, more bizarre decisions, not least putting out to tender the job of judging the future of London's orchestras. The Arts Council appears to have been threatened externally by cuts and internally by a certain loss of direction.
Following the Secretary of State's decision, will he ensure that the council's survival is dependent on the sharpness of its focus in answering the questions that he put to it, and that the accessibility and quality of the arts are not put at risk by further delay and dither?

Mr. Brooke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's implication that uncertainty is bad both for the Arts Council and for the artistic community, which is why I seek to bring matters to a conclusion. I take the opposite view from the hon. Gentleman: I think that, if we bring matters to a successful conclusion, we can avoid paralysis and secure something much more constructive.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the sharpness of focus that needs to be directed from now on. The process of inviting the Arts Council to look at its tasks on an incremental basis is the same process to which it subjects its clients and therefore one with which it will be familiar.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that by far the most eloquent plea against the £5 million cut has come from the chairman of the Arts Council? Will he heed that plea?
When my right hon. Friend reconstitutes the Arts Council, will he bear in mind that it is wrong to preclude people from the position of chairman because they cannot afford to do the job?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman looking for the job?

Mr. Cormack: No, I am not.
There would be a wide welcome in the arts world if the job were made a paid appointment so that people could afford to take it on.

Mr. Brooke: I wholly concur with my hon. Friend that, in his open letter to me, the noble Lord Palumbo was demonstrating the advocacy recommended by Price Waterhouse. On the second half of my hon. Friend's question, the Arts Council charter will require revision because of the transfer of responsibilities to Scotland and Wales. Therefore, the issue whether the chairman should be paid can be considered within that revision.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: .I thank the Minister for his courtesy in allowing me to see a copy of his statement in advance.
I hope that the restructuring will be successful, not only in terms of administration but in empowering the Arts Council to carry out its principal duty, which is to deliver artistic opportunity and artistic experiences to people throughout the country.
The Minister has again properly supported the Arts Council's arm's-length role, but he expressed a view about which I hope he will think again. He stressed the importance that he attached to the council's role in promoting touring. Although touring companies give people in the regions a pleasant opportunity, they are no substitute for firmly based and rooted regional companies delivering arts to their areas. The loss of companies such as the Bolton Octagon and the Oldham Coliseum would be sad. The company that operated at the Forum theatre in Wythenshawe, which has now sadly closed due to lack of funding, was such a centre of excellence that it made possible the performance of Sondheim musicals in the west end of London. The same can be said of the Haymarket theatre in Leicester.
It is not touring that is most important to us in the regions, but having our own companies rooted in our communities to provide experiences for us where we live.

Mr. Brooke: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his observations about the delivery of artistic opportunities and experiences. We shall continually return to that subject as it should be the guiding light of the Arts Council's activities. I do not seek to make touring a substitute for activity on the ground all round the country.

I hope that the decision that I announced last December about the transfer of 42 artistic organisations from the Arts Council to the regional arts boards is testimony to my concern that the arts should be served on the ground in the regions.

Mr. Terry Dicks: The House is never as bad as when it sits here pompously considering the future of the arty-farty world. It is ridiculous that we are wasting parliamentary and ministerial time on these matters. If my right hon. Friend really wants to contribute to cost cutting, why does he not close the Arts Council, and his Department with it? The sooner he does so the better so that we can utilise the money for something worthwhile.

Mr. Brooke: When my hon. Friend reads the report of today's exchanges, I do not think that he will necessarily take the view that we are all conducting ourselves pompously. There is a particular character part which he plays, and he plays it to perfection.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman failed to comment on the project "Arts through education". What are the implications of the review on "Arts through education", an immensely important project? Does he agree with me that the introduction of the national lottery into this whole area of arts funding is simply a means of getting the Government off the hook of their funding responsibilities, and will inevitably lead to a lack of proper provision for all the arts functions throughout the country?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman seeks to widen the debate with a general question on the issue of education. I know that he will have been encouraged by the fact that, in the statements which it made on 8 July, subsequent to its meeting at Woodstock, the Arts Council said that education was one sector in which it wished to see its role expanded.
One can take a variety of views on the lottery. In the context of the arts, where the emphasis will be on capital funding and there is a series of problems of capital deficiency which are crying out to be resolved, I do not think that the lottery will interfere with the basic function of the Arts Council, which will distribute the money for capital purposes.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reaffirmation of the arm's-length principle. Does he accept that moves to strengthen the accountability of the Arts Council to himself and the House sit delicately with that principle? Does he agree that the arts are a spendid investment for this country, generating jobs, tax revenues and benefits for the balance of payments? That fact must have something to do with the past ministrations of the Arts Council. Therefore, I welcome my right hon. Friend's cautious and pragmatic approach to reform of the Arts Council.
Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, in his conversations with the Treasury during the summer, he will vigorously stress the fact that the Government's role is to provide a stable, secure and generous contribution to the arts?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has articulated very well the role which Governments of all colours have played in the arts world. When he reads my statement, I do not think


that my hon. Friend will think that I was asking for accountability to myself. I was concerned that there should be accountability to Parliament. I might serve as a conduit through which some of that accountability could be exercised.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I also welcome the arm's-length relationship between the Secretary of State and the Arts Council. Surely the most important aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the activities will be the way in which it brings light to bear on some of the mysteries about the way in which the Arts Council has conducted itself.
The success of the right hon. Gentleman's analysis will be judged on how much light it sheds on some of the Arts Council's peculiar decisions, particularly its decision to transfer its responsibility to a judge. I know that that responsibility will go back to the Arts Council, but that was an extraordinary decision. I want to know more about how such decisions are made. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's analysis will bring some of the decisions to light.

Mr. Brooke: My analysis may have the virtue of restressing the arm's-length principle and subsequently, by actions which are louder than words, upholding it. In that way we shall give the Arts Council the confidence of knowing that it will not suffer interference from Ministers but will retain accountability to the nation through the House. The Arts Council will then feel so empowered as to make it clear why it makes its decisions and, if necessary, defend them.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the central purpose of his statement is to ensure that more of the funding is-spent at the sharp end, delivering arts, rather than on the machinery by which the money reaches those who pro vide the arts? Is he aware that, among the people at the sharp end, there has been concern about both the openness and the accountability of the Arts Council? There was particular anxiety that, given the extra funding that will come to the Arts Council through the national lottery, we need to be assured that the Arts Council is acting in an open and accountable way to improve the quality and range of arts available to the general public whom it seeks to serve.

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend follows a similar question asked by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) a moment ago. The House will join my hon. Friend in wishing that the funding that goes to what he described as the "sharp end" is not diluted on the way.

Ms Glenda Jackson: If the Minister will not intervene in matters of artistic judgment, will he intervene in matters of artistic misjudgment? How can the stated aim of the Government to present the best of our arts to most of our people possibly be carried out if the Arts' Council pursues its proposition of closing 10 regional theatres?
If that proposition is due to underfunding, the Minister should argue vehemently with the Treasury that cuts in the arts budget should be expunged. If it is a serious proposition, the Arts Council should be called to account by the Minister. Does he agree that, if we do not have regional theatres, we may not have London theatres in the future?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady is seductive in her suggestion that I should in fact abjure the arm's-length principle as soon as I have stated it.
It may be helpful if I remind the House that the first of the Arts Council's three charter objectives is to develop and improve the knowledge, understanding and practice of the arts. The second is to increase the accessibility of the arts to the public throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady might have received more support in the House if she had implied that the second objective would need to be explained by the Arts Council if the widespread regional provision was to be removed.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Minister accept that his somewhat delphic statement on the future of the Arts Council has done nothing to improve the demoralised state of the arts world that has resulted from two decisions? The first, for which the Minister is directly responsible, concerns the future cuts in Arts Council funding. The second concerns the deplorable situation regarding regional theatres, such as the Oldham Coliseum, which are on a hit list. While nothing has yet been defined, does the Minister agree that such a list would represent a threat to theatre in the regions and that that would have a detrimental effect on everyone?

Mr. Brooke: I do not know the. precise circumstances under which the Arts Council has decided not to be specific about the list of theatres about which it might be making decisions. Enough has happened to enable hon. Members to air the subject, so the Arts Council may listen to the debate without having put its proposals forward.
The hon. Gentleman said that I had been "somewhat delphic". I do not know about the Labour party, but it is said in my party that morale starts in the Chamber and spreads across the nation. My preoccupation is that morale is restored within the Arts Council and that that morale then spreads across the nation.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Arts Council is facing clear difficulties in reorganisation and in cuts in administration, personnel and finance. Would it not be prudent of the Minister to re-examine the allocation of the administration of the national lottery funds through the Arts Council?
The Minister must be aware of the widespread dissatisfaction in the film industry and, for example, the British Film Institute at the decision to award the administration of the national lottery funds to that body. Those in the industry feel that the Arts Council has neither the enthusiasm nor the expertise to deal with the film industry.
Philistines see the film industry only as some kind of machinery. Successful British films have an enormous cascading effect on British industry. They indicate standards of excellence and manufacturing in many ways. Does the Minister agree that it is essential to encourage the British film industry so that that important element is maintained and improved?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman and I share an affection for the game of cricket, and we have latterly discovered a mutual enthusiasm for film and the film industry. I therefore support his interests in the subject.
However, criticism was made in a debate on the Bill that I, as Secretary of State, was reserving for myself powers concerning the distribution of funds. The ability to


ensure that appropriate care and attention is given to film is one such power which I would exercise through the Act. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman's question went a little wide of my original statement.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I take this opportunity to refer to John Bute, who died this morning. He generously lent many of the most beautiful pictures by British artists and rendered great service to the arts in Scotland in many different capacities.
The Secretary of State said that integrated planning was not working as it should. What analysis has been done as to why it was not working?

Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to the late Lord Bute, whom I had the privilege of meeting in connection with some of the work that I do in my Department.
Integrated planning is a process that embraces the combined activity of the regional arts boards with the Arts Council at the centre. The conduct of integrated planning is necessarily somewhat new, because the transfer of substantial responsibility to the regional arts boards is itself new; but I believe that everyone who has so far been involved in integrated planning would agree that it is working less than perfectly. That is why Price Waterhouse flagged it up, and it is one of the reasons why all of us —I as Secretary of State, the Arts Council and the regional arts boards—will seek to make it work a great deal better.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Does not the Secretary of State understand that the crucial question which faces the arts is not the structure or composition of the Arts Council but the appalling lack of funding by the Government? Arts funding in Britain is one of the lowest in Europe at 0·3 per cent. of public expenditure. Is not that the issue?
Is not the consequence of that and of the further £5 million cut that he has announced for next year's Arts Council grant only too clear? The consequence is the loss of two major international and national orchestras and of 10 regional theatres. If those theatres close, they will not reopen, just as the 10 pits will not reopen, and the damage will be not only to theatre throughout the country but to the communities and town centres which, particularly at night, depend on those theatres to be a live focus for the community.
Will the Secretary of State deal with the issue of funding and, before it is too late, start fighting in Cabinet for more investment?

Mr. Brooke: I know that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of Parliament during the period of office of the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 when his distinguished father was a Member, but the funding which this administration provide for the arts exceeds by 44 per cent. in real terms the figure which the Labour Government bestowed in 1979. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to say that 44 per cent. is not enough, but the fact remains that his Government regarded a much lower figure as desirable for the arts in those days.
In answer to the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, of course I give him the assurance that we are anxious to see as much money made available for the arts as the nation can afford.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he had received a copy of the statement. I happen to think that it is perfectly sensible and courteous of the Secretary of State to give a copy to my right hon. Friend, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee. However, if the Chairman of the National Heritage Select Committee receives one, why does not the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—[Interruption.]—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow—receive a copy?
There is an argument for putting copies of statements in the Vote Office at 3 pm. The result would be that questions would be a little more informed. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander—sauce for Gorton and sauce for Bolsover.

Madam Speaker: It was courteous of the Secretary of State to make the statement available to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but it was a private arrangement which had nothing whatever to do with the Speaker.

BILL PRESENTED

LIMITATION (AMENDMENT)

Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Angela Eagle, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Malcolm Wicks and Mrs. Llin Golding, presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 so far as they relate to time limits for actions in respect of personal injuries and to the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as under a disability for the purposes of that Act; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 July, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]

Broadcasting (Amendment)

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 so as to require the transmission of a major evening news bulletin at ten o'clock; to make provision for centres of excellence of television production in the regions; to enforce strict compliance by franchisees with the terms of their franchise applications; to provide safeguards to support a United Kingdom-based television industry comparable to the safeguards protecting national television industries in other European countries; and for connected purposes.
My Bill would amend the appalling Broadcasting Act 1990. I should declare an interest as a member of the Broadcasting, Entertainment and Cinematograph Technicians Union and a member of the National Union of Journalists, and also as someone who worked for a while for Central Independent Television, although I emphasise that I have no financial interest in the matter.
I am deeply concerned about what is happening to broadcasting. Much of what is wrong with it is attributable to the workings of the Broadcasting Act. Broadcasting, for those of us who care about it, is at the crossroads of either becoming American-style, advertising-led broadcasting or having a chance to remain as it is—a public broadcasting service that is properly and democratically regulated and that, up till now, has been admired throughout the world. Like so many other institutions in Britain, however, I fear that it is under threat from the Government's legislation.
Broadcasting is not like any other industry, because it is central to our way of life and certainly central to our recreational activity. On average, we spend 25 hours a week watching television. Televisions are in 98 per cent. of households. Massive audiences watch British television —20 million people regularly watch Coronation Street, and at peak viewing time on Christmas Day, as many as 30 million people watch television. It is something worth caring about and doing well, but, sadly, if present trends continue it will not be done well for much longer.
Television is vital for the dissemination of news and information. Public opinion shows that far more people trust broadcasters, and especially television, in the transmission of news and current affairs than trust any other medium. In a recent poll, 72 per cent. of people said that they trusted television, while only 11 per cent. trusted newspapers. I am surprised that it is as high as 11 per cent. for newspapers, but the message is crystal clear: broadcasting is essential for the transmission of news and current affairs.
We are currently facing a massive increase in the number of channels. Most of us are used to one, two, three or perhaps four channels, but by the turn of the century there could easily be as many as 130. It is no use having dozens of channels if they are transmitting tripe, which is the case in many other countries where there is a totally unregulated system.
Despite all the importance of broadcasting and the increase in the number of channels, morale among the people who make programmes is at an all-time low. The comments of Mark Tully, in his lecture in the past week, were representative of many people who work in the industry.
Not all the ills of broadcasting are directly attributable to the Broadcasting Act 1990, but many are. I shall point

out some of the damage that has been done to the broadcasting industry that is directly attributable to the Act.
First, there has been tremendous pressure on the budgets of programme makers. That is partly due to the absurd lottery of the Act, which means that Yorkshire Television, for example, pays £38 million a year, whereas other television companies such as Central Television—I am delighted to say that it beat the system—and Scottish Television pay £2,000 a year. Why should the viewer have to suffer and the amount of money available for programme budgets be decreased on the basis of that silly system of allocating franchises, which has been described as poker?
There has also been tremendous pressure on budgets because of the predictable and unfair competition from cable and satellite television. It makes no sense at all that there are good and strict requirements on home-based production, which apply to the BBC and to ITV, but not on satellite and cable. The figures for the home-based production programme content of television programme hours are quite horrifying.
In 1985, 56 per cent. of transmitted television programme hours were produced in the United Kingdom. Because of the proliferation of channels, that had fallen to 19 per cent. by 1992, and it is estimated that the figure will be 13 per cent. by the year 2000. That is not surprising: it is much cheaper to bring in material from, say, the United States market, where drama can be produced for about £30,000 an hour, whereas home-produced drama, which has to make all its profits in the United Kingdom, can cost as much as £400,000 an hour or more.
It is therefore no wonder that the unregulated sections of the television industry buy in programmes from abroad. It is no wonder either that our balance of payments—it does not always seem to worry everyone in this House—in television programme production, which was in surplus to the tune of £24 million in 1985, was in deficit to the tune of £100 million by 1991—and the deficit is worsening.
I cannot see why the Independent Television Commission does not have the same powers over programme content and quality in cable television as it has over the independent television sector. When "News at Ten" was threatened with being moved to another time, pressure was rightly brought to bear to stop that happening, and the ITC intervened. But cable and satellite can do what they like with programmes. They can take them off the air or close down channels, because they are not subject to regulation or control.
Another predictable result of the Act was a drift of programming southwards, and a weakening of television in the regions. That should be a matter for concern to all who value local production facilities. The closure of studios and the drift to independents inevitably mean a drift to the south.
Another issue that will assume dramatic importance next year is the threat of the takeover of British television companies by foreign companies—which will inevitably happen if we do not apply the same rules to our industry as other countries do to theirs. Most Governments have the sense to give their national television industries some protection and do not want them owned or controlled from abroad purely for profit.
The final sickness in the system to which I shall refer was shown up in the ITC's quarterly report, published last


week. It says that the commercial pressures on programme makers to reduce their budgets have forced them to cut corners in a way that I never thought would happen in British broadcasting. Products are being displayed in programmes in prominent positions as a form of advertising. That is the thin end of the wedge; it deeply damages our system and the integrity of broadcasting.
People ask what I would do. I believe in a good old-fashioned dose of democratic regulation and control of the industry. That idea has been out of fashion—at least it was in the 1980s, when the prevailing madness was that everything could be governed by so-called free market forces. They simply do not deliver. With the progressive release of these market forces in broadcasting, the advertisers and the accountants have taken control. People no longer ask how good a programme is; they ask how much money it will make. Programme makers and viewers have lost out.
I am proud to say that what is required is a look back to find out what made our system the best in the world. The answer is: democratic regulation and control, to ensure standards, to provide the money properly to pay for jobs in the industry, to see that people are properly employed, and to make certain that there is none of the endless short-termism and lack of training that characterise industries not subject to democratic control.
Those who care about broadcasting—that includes almost all of us, as we spend 25 hours a week watching television—may agree with me that it is too important and too precious to be left to the whims of advertisers and accountants. It is time that we instituted democratic control, through this House, and made the system once again one to be proud of.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bruce Grocott, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Don Dixon, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Dennis Turner.

BROADCASTING (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Bruce Grocott accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 so as to require the transmission of a major evening news bulletin at ten o'clock; to make provision for centres of excellence of television production in the regions; to enforce strict compliance by franchisees with the terms of their franchise applications; to provide safeguards to support a United Kingdom-based television industry comparable to the safeguards protecting national television industries in other European countries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 July, and to be printed. [Bill 246.]

ESTIMATES DAY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY, 2ND PART]

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94

Class VIII, Vote 1

Home Office

Domestic Violence

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1992–93 on Domestic Violence (House of Commons Paper No. 245-I) and the Government Response thereto (Cm. 2269.)]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further sum, not exceeding £1,807,298,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on compensation for criminal injuries, probation, police and superannuation payments for police and fire services.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient also to discuss the next three motions relating to estimates:
That a further sum, not exceeding £745,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on police, the forensic science service, emergency planning, fire, the Fire Service College, court services, other services related to crime, probation and after-care, miscellaneous services, prevention of drug abuse, control of immigration and nationality, issue of passports etc., community services; and on administration (excluding the provision made for prisons administration carried on Class VIII, Vote 2).
That a further sum, not exceeding £427,760,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the court service, magistrates' courts, legal aid administration, tribunals, the court building programme, certain other legal services and a payment to the Land Registry Trading Fund.
That a further sum, not exceeding £135,693,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Crown Prosecution Service on administrative costs including the hire of private prosecuting agents.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is not always appreciated by our constituents that Parliament—and particularly this House—often pauses in its headlong rush to get laws on to the statute book to consider general issues of national and social concern. Hon. Members do so without drama and frenzy, and without the harangue, diatribe and vitriol of party politics. One example of that vital work will be debated this afternoon as we consider the subject of domestic violence.
I am sorry that so many of our colleagues are not present at this important debate. I hope that they are at home—repairing the ravages of this Maastricht-ridden life that we have been pursuing—and that there is domestic tranquillity back at their roots.
The Home Affairs Select Committee, consisting of six Conservative Members and five Labour Members and of which I am privileged to have been elected as Chairman, decided a year ago to look in some depth at the devastating social problem of domestic violence. The evidence that we received from interested groups and individuals was prodigious, and the witnesses who gave evidence in person were many. Our report is comparatively long and we have made 42 specific recommendations for improving the way in which we tackle the problem in society.
I warmly thank my hard-working colleagues on the Committee, our dedicated Clerk, Paul Silk, and his staff, those who took the trouble to give evidence to us and those whom we met on our visits in London—the police, social workers and the victims. Finally, I thank my colleagues on the Liaison Select Committee for choosing this subject for debate today.
Our inquiries left us with no illusions about the prevalence of domestic violence in society today, or its enormous cost in financial as well as, more importantly, human terms. Paragraph 136 of our conclusions defines
that most basic of a citizen's rights: the one of living a life where violence is not feared and individual dignity is respected.
That is simply not possible when the menace of violence lurks where there ought to exist a haven of peace and tranquillity—the home.
In paragraph 6 of our report, we stress that men as well as women are affected by domestic violence, perhaps more frequently than many realise. All our recommendations therefore apply equally to men and to women.
There are many forms of domestic violence: adult children may abuse their parents and grandparents; fathers, uncles and other relatives may abuse their daughters, sons, nieces, and so on. We have had to concentrate our attention on violence between partners and ex-partners in order to keep our inquiry within manageable proportions. I hope that the House will understand and accept that.
We do not pretend that we are the first to address the subject. Our report supplements and complements the work recently done by Victim Support and the Law Commission in particular. Eighteen years ago, the Parliamentary Select Committee on Violence in the Family reported, and much has been achieved since then. There have been changes in legislation, in the way that agencies such as the police, the judiciary, social workers and the churches approach the problem, and in the attitude of Government.
The more attention has been focused on the problem, the more its full extent has been realised and the more the problem has been seen to grow. The general achievement of the attention has been to ensure that domestic violence is now treated as a serious crime by the police, prosecutors and the courts.
As the problem seems to be getting worse, either because more abuse is coming to light, or because our society is less stable and its citizens more intolerant. and less tranquil, a great deal remains to be done to improve things. Most of our recommendations are for specific action which we believe needs to be taken. In our view, there is a need for better facts and statistics, to monitor arrest rates, make police domestic violence units a more central part of police work, for the Crown Prosecution

Service to monitor police performance in that area and for the courts and prosecutors to adopt more victim-friendly procedures and practices.
We believe that victims should be further helped by making more child contact and victim access centres available through the establishment of a central co-ordinated policy for the provision of refuges throughout the country. Furthermore, we believe that such provision, far from increasing costs, could well be the single greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken.
We make recommendations for the perpetrators of domestic violence. Taking such attacks more seriously and punishing the perpetrators through the courts will help to increase deterrence. We recommend programmes in prison that encourage men to recognise their violent behaviour towards women and then try to change it. We recommend a variety of schemes in the community that are designed also to make perpetrators confront the iniquity of their behaviour and stop it. We address, too, the particular problems that the black and ethnic minority communities can face and the need for sensitivity in dealings between them and the criminal justice agencies.
We highlight the role of Government in addressing domestic violence. We welcome the establishment of a ministerial group on domestic violence and recommend that priority is given to tackling the problem by all Departments. We believe that the Treasury in particular should participate in the consideration of domestic violence issues, and that encouragement should be given by the Government to local inter-agency co-operation.
One of the most important aspects of our Select Committee system is that, when a Committee has reported, the Government must make a response. Such reports focus Government attention on the subject of the inquiry, as the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department have clearly and carefully done with our report.
The Government's report has been measured, detailed and positive, and we would like to place on record our appreciation of the attention that has been given by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. In the spirit of the courts charter, they have taken on board many of our recommendations, particularly in respect of proposals for the police, Crown Prosecution Service, court procedure and the support and protection of witnesses and victims, which justifies our raising the matter substantially under the estimates programme.
During the inquiry, a number of issues of particular interest and importance emerged, but as so many colleagues wish to speak I shall confine myself to mentioning just three of them briefly.
So much of the problem of violence in the home arose quite simply out of inadequate housing provision. Some issues were outside the remit of our Select Committee, which scrutinises only the work of the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and their agencies. However, that did not stop us—particularly after having seen something of the work of Chiswick Family Rescue, now renamed Refuge—making recommendations about the need for refuges, for more sympathetic housing allocation for victims and for welcoming interdepartmental co-ordination by the Government which, of course, involves the Department of the Environment.
Another matter that emerged was the importance not only of criminal law but of civil law. We found that to be in a rather confused state and, as such, not so helpful as it


might be in protecting the interests of victims of domestic violence. As long ago as 1984, Lord Scarman, giving judgment in the case of Richards v. Richards and speaking of the proliferation of powers and remedies for dealing with violent cohabitees, said:
The sooner the range, scope and effect of these powers are rationalised into a coherent body of statute law, the better.
Since then, the frustration of the legal profession in dealing with such cases has grown.
We have therefore welcomed the Law Commission's initiative and we urge the Government to introduce legislation along the lines of the Law Commission's draft Bill which would deal more sensibly with the plethora of exclusion orders, non-molestation orders, occupation orders, ousters, property rights, attachment of powers of arrest and who should be entitled to exercise those powers.
We believe that those matters are too urgent to gather dust on library shelves like so many other Law Commission reports, and we are saddened to hear the Government's response that the timing of legislation would depend, in that old phrase, on the availability of parliamentary time.
We dissented with the Law Commission on only one proposal—the proposal to give the police third party rights in civil domestic violence actions. As a Committee, we believed that the police should concentrate on normal policing, in respect of which they are already overstretched. For the rest, we believe that the Bill should be included in next Session's programme because it is essential that a more coherent structure be introduced into the civil law in this area—and without delay, if much unnecessary suffering is to be avoided.
The third area that I want to deal with, and which during our inquiries seemed to stir public and media interest following controversial cases in which husbands and wives had killed their spouses or cohabitees after long periods of domestic violence, relates to the law of homicide, which we dealt with in paragraphs 85 to 99.
It is a defence to a murder charge—reducing the killing to manslaughter—if the killer was provoked to retaliate. At present the law states that retaliation must take place in the heat of the moment and must be in response to provocation that would have led a reasonable man to lose his self-control and to retaliate as the killer did. Cumulative provocation does not justify the defence, although the triggering act of provocation can be relatively minor.
The women's groups who gave evidence to us, in particular, told us that provocation had been used more successfully by men who killed their partners than by women and that a nagging wife might be enough justification in some cases. The crux of the dissatisfaction was that the provocation had to be sudden, when women's resentments were often cumulative. There has been some softening of that approach in recent cases in the Court of Appeal.
While feeling sympathy towards defendants who have suffered prolonged abuse at the hands of the persons they had killed, the Committee did not want to see revenge killings committed while defendants were fully in control of their emotions and that being used to reduce murder to manslaughter.
However, we feel that there is a need for more clarity in the definition, and we endorsed the Law Commission's

recommendation that one condition of the defence should be that the provocation should, in all the circumstances —including any of the defendant's personal characteristics that affect its gravity—be considered by the jury to be sufficient ground for the loss of self-control.
More generally, we propose that the Law Commission should produce a consultation document on the law of homicide and that the Government should bring forward proposals on the law in that area in the light of that consultation exercise. Unfortuantely, in their response, the Government do not believe that the Law Commission's proposals would result in more clarity and certainty. We do not share their view.
This is an estimateds day, and estimates debates are about the financing of improvements in our society. In our report on what has been a fascinating, important and urgent matter, we have proposed a variety of new measures which will undoubtedly cost money. If we were asked, we could not say precisely how much our recommendations would cost. It would be impossible to estimate such a figure. It should be obvious that it is also impossible to estimate the costs of inaction—costs which will inevitably be very substantial.
I am satisfied, and I believe that the Committee is satisfied, that the costs of domestic violence in financial and human terms far outweigh the costs of our recommendations. Spending money on reducing the scale of domestic violence at its earliest stages will undoubtedly save money which is now being spent on housing, health, education, social services and justice in an effort to remedy the misery caused by violence in the home.
As we conclude in our report in paragraph 137, we look now for a
wide vision of what can be achieved and an ambitious programme for action.
If that does not happen, we have little doubt that it will be the victims of domestic violence who will suffer most—and no one in the House wants that to happen.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I want first to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on his speech and I would like to thank my colleagues on the Select Committee who spent so much time on this very important subject.
I am delighted that this was the first subject to be considered by the Home Affairs Select Committee in this Parliament. That demonstrates the importance of the subject, about which very many people, particularly women, feel very strongly, and the Select Committee considered the matter very seriously. I also pay tribute to the Clerks and to the witnesses.
We heard from our witnesses, and in written evidence, tragic and horrific tales of brutality against women and children and of huge public costs in terms of policing, courts and the national health service. However, we also heard of the greatly improved quality of policing of domestic violence.
As a London Member, I am aware of the excellence of my domestic violence unit which serves Hornsey and Wood Green. That improvement is not true simply in respect of my constituency: it is true throughout the Metropolitan police area. The Met deserve to be congratulated on the improvements, and particularly on the domestic violence units which have been established.
However, that is not just a unique feature of policing in London and policing. There are many other examples of good policing elsewhere in the country. One of the strong recommendations of our report is that those examples of good practice should be reproduced in the rest of the country.
The Government have given us a comprehensive response to our report. However, I believe that there are many areas where much more needs to be done and where there could have been a much better response. The first of those areas, with which I wish to deal, relates to refuge provision.
One of the strongest recommendations of the report is:
the first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central, co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country. We believe that this could well be the single greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken.
As the report points out, and as has already been said, the present number of refuge places is less than one third of the number, recommended as an initial target by the Select Committee on Violence in the Family which reported in 1975, of one family place per 10,000 of the population.
Witnesses from a variety of backgrounds—women's aid groups, police organisations, social worker representatives, local authority associations and others—emphasised the lack of provision and its consequences: crime cannot be prevented as easily, women may be deterred from following prosecutions through, and community-based sentences for offenders can cause danger to victims if refuges and refuge provision are riot in place.
A crisis is taking place in refuges. I know, for example, that Refuge—an organisation that has done a tremendous amount of work—has a funding crisis. Many refuges affiliated to the Women's Aid Federation, face similar crises. The federation has made a large contribution to the debate and has done a great deal of valuable work. Haringey Women's Aid, an excellent organisation in my constituency, has to spend too much of its time raising funds every year.
Look at what has happened to child care workers in refuges. It is often forgotten that children are victims of domestic violence, but child care workers are almost an endangered species in refuges simply because there is not enough money to pay for them. We need a much greater and better Government response to that problem.
Let me quote the statement of the noble Baroness Cumberlege in another place on 29 April. When asked whether the Government had any plans to encourage the provision and funding of women's refuges, she replied only:
the provision of funding for women's refuges is primarily a matter for local agencies."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 April 1993, c. 433.]
I strongly reject that view. What happens if a woman is the victim of domestic violence? Quite understandably, she does not want to go to the local refuge. Why? Because, when she walks down the street she might see the man who has subjected her to violence. The refuge might be round the corner from where the violence took place.
She might therefore go to a refuge in another borough, which will ask why it is funding refuge provision for women from elsewhere. All that emphasises the need for a national co-ordinated strategy, and that funding for refuges has to be put on a proper national footing.
What will be the Government's response to the interdepartmental working group on domestic violence? The Home Office should be the lead group, and it is good that there is an official working group on domestic violence, chaired by the Home Office. I gather from answers to parliamentary questions that I have recently tabled that that organisation has met twice. However, it is in the interests of open government that a variety of Government Departments should be involved.
In answer to my question about the frequency of meetings, the Minister of State said of the group:
It will continue to meet as and when appropriate".—(Official Report, 9 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 300.)
When the Minister makes his contribution to the debate, will he agree that, in the interests of open government and in the spirit of working together to alleviate the problems of the victims of domestic violence, it will be useful to know more about the workings of the group? Exactly what is its remit, how and when is it intended to meet, and how will the results of its deliberations be disseminated? Perhaps publication of its recommendations could be considered.
We also considered court procedure. Welsh Women's Aid, in its written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, gave graphic accounts of women's experiences in court. In one case, a woman called
Elisabeth had to sit in close proximity with the man who had abused her physically, sexually and emotionally. There was absolutely nowhere else for her to wait.
Another woman
was waiting in the waiting area of the court when she was punched in the mouth by her violent ex-partner. He also threatened the barrister
who represented her
and was abusive to the judge. He was threatened with 'contempt' but this was not followed through".
Another victim said:
I went to a magistrates court for a protection order. It was awful, I wanted to run away but I needed that order. The entrance hall was full of men mostly in handcuffs. I was afraid of them but there was nowhere else to go; they all stared at me.
With cases like that, it is a miracle that women ever press charges.
Of course, not all court experiences are as bad as that: there is some excellent practice. I hope that the House will forgive me for mentioning my constituency again, but Wood Green Crown court, which I visited on Friday, is one of the pioneers of witness services. I met the volunteers who staff the service on Friday. They are well trained, committed and courteous and, while being careful not to interfere with the details of the case, provide support in the form of a comfortable waiting area, explanation of court procedure and a tour of an empty court. They also give emotional support and practical help with childminding, liaison with employers and transport to court.
All the people I spoke to at the court, from the clerks to the Crown Prosecution Service, spoke highly of that witness service. It is important that more such services are introduced, because 38 out of 74 Crown courts do not have them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what will happen in those courts.
The victims charter says that the latest design standards for new Crown court buildings provide for ample witness waiting rooms per courtroom, with separate doors leading directly to the witness box in the courtroom. What is happening to courts which are not new build and have not been specially designed? What provisions will be made there?
Perhaps more importantly, what is happening in the magistrates courts? Magistrates courts are frequently in very old buildings and—as a member of the Bar who has practised in the courts, frequently on this type of case—I know at first hand that the accounts that I quoted are accurate, because women have to go through quite an ordeal in magistrates courts before their case starts. That is a high priority if we want more women to come to court and more proceedings to take place.
I also want to mention organisations that help women who are members of the black and ethnic minority communities. I pay tribute to the work of Asian Women's Aid in my constituency, and I recently had the pleasure of helping to launch Jewish Women's Aid. Perhaps the most famous organisation is Southall Black Sisters, which has done impressive work with black and ethnic minority women. It gave excellent evidence to our Committee and was able to describe the plight of women who come into the country to join husbands, or whose husbands have refugee status, and who have no rights of their own. Under our immigration rules they come in for an initial 12 months.
What happens to those women if they are the subject of domestic violence during that time? They cannot call on public funds. The rule is that they must have no recourse to public funds during that period, which often makes them totally dependent on their husband and his family. If they leave the family, the Home Office often wrongly assumes that the marriage was only one of convenience.
As Southall Black Sisters said in a submission to Amnesty International's hearing on human rights on 8 June this year:
We come across many cases of women and children who have experienced violence and abuse and are unable to seek help for fear of being deported. This double bind can become life threatening. The choice is stark—on the one hand, women risk their lives, and those of their children, if they stay in violent situations, on the other hand, they risk being deported to their countries of origin, where they face open hostility, intense discrimination and risk to their health and lives".
I emphasise that only a few women are involved, but the cost to those women's lives is absolutely vital.
It is an important omission—again, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments—that the ministerial working group on domestic violence does not include the immigration and nationality department, given the serious problems for women whose immigration status is not secure. Will the Minister ensure that that section is included in future? It is a very important issue.
I would be extremely interested to know how many women are deported each year after leaving their violent husbands. The Government, in their response to the Select Committee, assert that the immigration and nationality department is alert to the difficulties faced by some women who have insecure immigration status and a violent partner, but the experience of groups campaigning for women contradicts that.
My own view is that no woman should be deported when there is even a possibility that she is suffering at the hands of a violent partner. Unless something is done about the problem, such women will continue to die or face a living death.
Hon. Members will wish to comment on provocation. It is a great pity that the Government could not agree with the Select Committee and the Law Commission. We

believe that the law should be changed and clarified. We also await the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on legal aid—a vital matter. If women are to obtain injunctions and have the protection of civil remedies, they need a proper legal aid system.
In our report we say that we wish to return to the subject of domestic violence. I was extremely glad that the Government agree with the Select Committee on the importance of increasing public awareness of domestic violence. The Metropolitan police referred to Canada. Sandra Horley, a witness who appeared before the Committee, has made a great study of the system in Canada, where, because of publicity campaigns, there is heightened awareness of domestic violence.
Domestic violence is a crime—it is that message that we have to get across. We have to change the culture of our society from an early stage. A properly funded and directed campaign of public education would bring together the other recommendations in our report. I hope that, by the time the Select Committee returns to the subject, such a campaign will have been undertaken and will have lessened the incidence of such a shocking, tragic and brutal crime for so many women.

Mr. John Greenway: I have had the privilege of serving on the Home Affairs Select Committee for six years. In terms of seniority in this House, a period of six years does not count for very much, but such has been the changing membership of the Select Committee that I am now one of its longest-serving members.
I am not sure whether six years is long enough to show the validity of my point, but no Committee produces more reports than ours—seven or eight each Session. I have never known the Select Committee to spend so much time carefully discussing the issues in our report and coming to our conclusions. That was not difficult, because often there was a party political dispute between the two sides of the Committee.
We very carefully considered all the evidence that we received, which was carefully prepared and painstakingly given. Some issues in our report need great consideration, and answers to them are not easily found. That is particularly true about whether there should be a change in the law on murder.
The Select Committee often sat until almost midnight, even though the House had adjourned some hours before, and long before 10 o'clock. It is fortunate that hon. Members have understanding families.
I welcome the opportunity for another debate on the Floor of the House. We have published our recommendations. The Government's swift, detailed response is also available to hon. Members. In this debate, we need merely to draw attention to some key issues.
We must consider how big a problem domestic violence is. It is very difficult to provide precise statistics, but, at the end of our inquiry, I was left with the clear impression that the incidence of domestic violence in Britain today is infinitely worse than the figures show.
Hon. Members who visited the domestic violence unit at Islington will recall that the staff in the little office there seemed to be doing a tremendous job for the local community. They appeared to have a record of a domestic violence incident in one out of every 30 families in the borough of Islington. We were told that that was by no


means extraordinary in that inner-London Metropolitan police district. That is a staggering figure, and it shows the huge social cost which domestic violence represents for society today.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed out, although our inquiry concentrated on assaults on women by men, it became increasingly clear that, in many families in which domestic violence is prevalent, it is the children who suffer greatly. Hon. Members see the effects of abuse of and violence to children in our constituencies, even in some of the more affluent parts of Britain. It is right and proper to pay tribute to the work not only of refuges that support some of the women who have been on the receiving end—the victims of domestic violence—but of some child support agencies.
The next issue is to what extent we should treat domestic violence differently from other forms of violence. Violence is violence, and as such is unacceptable. Murder is murder, and serious assault is serious assault. Whether violence occurs in the home or in the world at large should not affect the seriousness with which we treat it.
Another problem is that, unless we can identify violence in families throughout Britain, we cannot possibly hope to begin to deal with it. To that extent, we need different solutions and programmes to remedy what is going wrong. One is challenged by the thought that the circumstances of violence could be a mitigating factor or could make the violence much more serious and less acceptable.
As our inquiry unfolded, and as we visited refuges in London, it became apparent that some women have been the victims of violence but have retaliated against it—only to find themselves in court charged with assault and, in one tragic case, with murder.
What response should the police make to incidents of domestic violence? Should it be different from their response to violence in other circumstances? Over recent years, the police have made great strides in the way that they deal with the problem. As the House knows, during the 1960s I served for five years as a policeman in London's west end. The police culture then was that domestic disorder was not a matter for the police service. If I remember correctly—it was 28 years ago—some of our training pointed us in that direction.
Of course, that attitude is no longer acceptable. It should reassure hon. Members to know that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and chief constables throughout the country, have made considerable progress in ensuring that the police give a more appropriate response to incidents of domestic violence.
What should the police do when they are called to such incidents? Should they arrest the husband who has beaten his wife? What happens when that man is released from the police station, where he may have been for some hours? Where does he go? Obviously, he goes home. Discussion of these matters throws up challenging issues. There is a need for the highest possible standard of training and the dissemination of best practice throughout the police service, so that an appropriate response is made in each case.
In the Metropolitan police area, priority has been given to the creation of domestic violence units. Parts of my constituency, especially the rural areas, are often 20 or 30 miles from the nearest police station, which is not necessarily manned 24 hours a day, as many of them close

at night. Therefore, it would not be easy for the North Yorkshire police force to set up special units similar to those in Islington and other parts of London.
My constituency may be more sparsely populated than inner-city areas, but we should not ignore the fact that domestic violence occurs throughout the country. It does not occur just in inner cities, albeit that, because of the concentration of population, they have more incidents. We must remember that when we respond to the Government's White Paper on the structure of the police service, and when we decide what to do about the Sheehy report.
Police in rural areas have to be jacks of all trades, with the training, skill and professionalism to deal with all possible incidents. There is not enough manpower, and never could be, to staff the specialist units enjoyed by the Metropolitan police.
Best practice and training does not stop with the police service—it extends to the Crown Prosecution Service in the processing of cases. I am pleased that the Government's response to our report included the republishing of the CPS guidelines on how domestic violence cases should be treated. Just as the police have a difficult decision to make on whether or not to arrest, so the CPS has a difficult decision to make on whether or not to prosecute a husband or partner still living in the same house as the woman. Prosecution might make the position worse. Despite that, the Committee felt that prosecutions were not brought often enough.
One reason for that view is that, if someone is prosecuted and pleads guilty or is found guilty by magistrates or a jury, the court then has some influence over his punishment, and may direct that he has some treatment. If the treatment were voluntary, the offender could quickly give up, but with the compulsion of the court order as part of his sentence, there is a better chance that the treatment will continue and eventually produce a statisfactory result. Another benefit of bringing such a case before the courts is that agencies that can support the family can be brought into play more easily.
Recommendation No. 5 in the report says that resource limitation should not be an excuse for inaction. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, the Chairman of our Committee, mentioned that. The truth is that refuge provision is inadequate. Those of us who visited the refuges and met some of the women living in them found vivid examples of the ludicrous problems caused by a lack of flexibility in housing provision.
In one refuge in Hammersmith, a woman with three or four children had been living in a single room for nine months. It would be an insult to the refuge to paint too grim a picture of her living conditions, but those of us who saw them felt that they were quite unsatisfactory. That woman was in receipt of housing benefit in two separate locations and there appeared to be a total inability to Lind an answer to her problems because of the inflexibility of the two local authorities involved. I am sure that there are many similar cases.
We therefore welcome the response from the Department of the Environment, contained in the Government's response, about improved guidelines for housing authorities. It is simply not good enough to say that a woman fleeing with her children from serious violence against her in the matrimonial home is making herself intentionally homeless, and is therefore not eligible to be housed by the local authority.
We must also look to the future. We need to change the guidelines and to encourage greater flexibility and better practice, but we also need to ensure that people do not abuse the system. In calling for a more flexible approach, I believe that we should go even further than what was recommended in our report.
Most of my constituency no longer has council houses, because they have all been successfully transferred to housing associations. That provides a good opportunity to increase housing provision and the level of repairs to the existing stock of property available for rent. I want housing associations to make an assessment of the problem in the areas they serve—particularly those associations that have taken over council homes—and to make the necessary provision.
As to whether the Government should reconsider aspects of the law on murder, I echo the disappointment expressed by my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) at the Government's response. We did not reach our recommendation lightly, but responded to evidence that the present law is unsatisfactory. Given that our view was in line with the Law Commission's recommendation, I find it difficult to understand why the Government are so relucant to re-examine that issue.
Since making our report—this relates to a different issue, but one related to the law on murder—there was the shocking case last week of the acquittal in a murder trial of Joseph Elliott, whose defence counsel successfully argued that Elliott had acted in self-defence. I am sure that the whole House feels that the law on self-defence, as well as on provocation, needs to be re-examined.
The Government may, after further examination, reach the negative conclusion that change would be difficult, but many of us feel that the present situation is unsatisfactory. We do not pretend that there is an easy solution, but that issue ought to be considered.
Having chided the Minister in that respect, I should add that I welcome much of the Government's response, which was largely positive, and highlighted the great steps that are already being taken. I hope that the interdepartmental working party will find practical solutions to many of the problems that our inquiries identified.
As our report itself concluded, unless improvements are made, it is not right hon. and hon. Members, or even the great majority of the British people who will suffer, but the victims of domestic violence.

Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome this opportunity to debate domestic violence, especially as we have discussed family values extensively over the past few months. Not all families hold to the values that we expect. Half the women killed are killed by their husband, partner or ex-partner. One third of reported crimes against women are crimes of domestic violence, and one quarter of all assaults occur in domestic circumstances. Those statistics are not generally acknowledged. We tend to view family life through rose-tinted spectacles, assume that all families get on well and believe that children are best brought up in a family atmosphere—but they are not if that atmosphere includes violence.
Much of the improvement over the past few years is the result of the establishment of domestic violence units. Many more women now feel more able to report domestic violence—but not Asian women, many of whom still feel that there is a stigma attached to reporting domestic violence. Many of them are 20 years behind the rest of the community in that respect. I hope that will improve, and we must do all in our power to encourage Asian women to report domestic violence in the same way as other women. Many other hon. Members and I have dealt with such cases.
Before domestic violence units were established in London in 1986, there were only 860 reported cases of domestic violence. By 1991, that figure had increased to 8,000. We must congratulate those responsible for that success. They are not always brillant, but the situation is far better than in the past. Many women do not report domestic violence to the police but go to hospital casualty departments. I should like women social workers in particular to be immediately on hand there, to help women who turn up at the hospital with a black eye, broken ribs, a broken limb or any of the other injuries synonymous with domestic violence. A social worker could then do follow-on work with the family.
Although the situation has improved, a large problem remains. Recent evidence from Canada suggests that a woman has to be assaulted 30 times before reporting domestic violence, and I am sure that the experience in this country is very similar—that is extremely frightening. Many women fail to report violence against them because of lack of money. They fear that they will be unable to survive on their own. They see leaving their husband or partner as the inevitable result of reporting violence and are afraid of then being unable to manage financially. They fear reprisals, not only from their husband or partner but from his relatives.
Alcohol is a predominant factor in many incidents of domestic violence. Turning Point and Alcohol Concern say that between 50 and 60 per cent. of domestic violence involves alcohol and alcohol abuse. I urge the Government to reconsider removing the ring fencing of the drug and alcohol abuse budget. If a man who seeks help—having acknowledged that he is abusing his wife and that his children are being affected—cannot find a way out by entering a Turning Point hostel or getting help from another agency, the violence will continue.
Unemployment and poverty also lead to a lack of self-esteem. When someone lacks self-esteem, he wants to make someone else feel lower than he does. That person is invariably his partner or wife. The individual with low esteem will take it out on his partner, so that he feels big, adequate and masculine. We all know that that is not true, but such an attitude is usually brought on by low self-esteem.
Twenty-four hour helplines are also needed. The Department of Health is funding the Women's Aid Federation to the tune of £136,000, but it cannot operate a 24-hour helpline. I understand that that is the only money coming from central Government. Compare that £136,000 with the situation in Canada, where spending to combat domestic violence is $136 million.
Local authorities are responsible for refuges, of which there are very few. I agree with other hon. Members that a national strategy is needed to provide them throughout the country. At present, 27 per cent. of local authorities provide no refuges, 11 per cent. provide only one and only


5 per cent. provide more than three. That is not acceptable, given the continual increase in domestic violence. Proper national funding would ultimately prove cost effective, reducing the number of problems—especially those related to health—that currently force Government Departments and agencies to pick up the pieces.
Women's Aid and Chiswick Family Rescue—now known as Refuge—estimates that it needs £270,000 a year just to keep going. It is finding it difficult to cope. It is not raising the money that it needs, and it has already had to cut services. It will cut others next month, and it has said today that it fears that it may have to close completely in 1994 if the money is not forthcoming. It is scandalous that the first women's aid refuge to be set up should face such a funding crisis. We should be finding more money to set up more refuges, rather than allowing money to be taken away. In today's economic climate, people find it difficult to give to charities.
The problem is the same throughout the country. What happens to women when refuges close? They have nowhere to go but the streets. The current homelessness problem makes life very hard for them. The Rochdale safer cities project estimates that 25 per cent. of Rochdale's homelessness is the result of domestic violence. That problem, too, exists throughout the country.
Today's debate concerns abuse of partners, but children who witness such abuse are scarred for life. It has been recorded that more than half the children living in a violent home in West Yorkshire witnessed or experienced abuse. One third of those children tried to protect their mother. We do not do enough to counsel and help such children; services are cut time and again, and, without the necessary counselling, love and affection, the children may ultimately become abusers themselves. That is well documented. It is a great shame that we cannot do more.
As others have pointed out, it must be made easier for mothers to cross local authority boundaries. Even if an authority can rehouse a women, and accept that she did not make herself homeless intentionally, what women wants to be rehoused in the same street as a violent partner, or a few streets away from him? Women fear that, when they are out shopping, they will bump into the person who has abused them persistently for years, or that their children will be terrified going to school knowing that he may be around any corner.
Local authority homelessness sections should employ more women who are properly trained to pinpoint homelessness resulting from domestic violence. Many women still refuse to admit that they have been beaten up or otherwise abused, because they feel that it is a fault in some way. They feel that they have done something wrong, or that they are inadequate; they will not accept that it is the man concerned who is inadequate, sensing that they are themselves failures. Trained people would be able to spot that, and perhaps act on their perception more quickly than is possible now.
More emergency legal aid provision is also needed. I am very worried about the current proposals, which will prevent many women from acting against violent partners. This is at the heart of the problem. Many women who have left their husbands and want to take them to court accuse their former partners and then decide not to give evidence. The Crown Prosecution Service must prosecute far more often; it should not be up to the women concerned to initiate such action.
I know that the probation service is doing a very good

job, but we must ensure that all aspects of domestic violence are taken seriously. Part of the problem is the fact that a range of Departments must deal with domestic violence. Recently, in another place, Earl Ferrers mentioned the forming of an interdepartmental group. Will the Minister tell us whether such a group has met? I hope that all Departments will recognise their responsibility in regard to women who have been subjected to domestic violence.
I welcome the Government's response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but I want them to go further. I hope that the Minister will take on board all that has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Ms Jean Corston: I congratulate the Select Committee on Home Affairs on choosing such an important topic for its first report to the House. It reflects the current concern about domestic violence, particularly that felt by women.
Domestic violence is not an isolated phenomenon, as hon. Members have made clear today. It is widespread, and it is no respecter of social class. Indeed, it has an ancient tradition. All hon. Members will be familiar with the phrase "rule of thumb"; how many know what it means? In the past, a man was permitted to beat his wife as long as he used a stick no thicker than his own thumb. Thus, violence was legitimised for a long time, and passed into folklore. Only 20 years ago, it was still seen as solely a matter of feminist concern: it was then that Erin Pizzey wrote her seminal book "Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear".
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and others have mentioned the effect of domestic violence on children and the cycle that builds up. One of the saddest things that I recall hearing in recent years was a friend's account of enduring 17 years of domestic violence. Finally, she left her husband with her two children. Only after talking to other people did she discover that such violence was not the norm. Her father had beaten her mother, and her husband had beaten her; she considered that to be normal married behaviour. Moreover, her case is not an isolated instance.
Our domestic violence legislation completely fails women who are brave enough to go to court. The law is a mess—I say that as someone who, before becoming a Member of Parliament, was a barrister specialising in domestic violence law. The law is spread among different Acts of Parliament, all attested to in the Select Committee's excellent report. That means that a woman has to deal with a maze of legislation, and it is difficult for any barrister or solicitor trying to advise her to find a remedy that offers protection to her and to her children.
The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978—both introduced by the Labour Government, I am pleased to say—still stand as the basic corpus of domestic violence law. However, the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act, which is obviously more widely available because it falls within the jurisdiction of magistrates, applies only to married people, not to people who are cohabiting. We know that in a large proportion of "marriage" relationships people have not gone through the marriage ceremony but are simply cohabiting. The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial


Proceedings Act is available to co-habitees only in the jurisdiction of the county court, which means that people often have to travel long distances to get to the court and apply for an injunction.
The Select Committee report and the Law Commission have attested to the way in which domestic violence legislation makes if difficult to obtain injunctions. One of the most iniquitous aspects is the fact that it is difficult for a woman to get an injunction if she has not applied to the court quickly. There is supposed to be an obvious element of urgency, yet I have known of many cases in which a woman has been traumatised by the violence, has needed to recover from her injuries, or has needed to escape the relationship and find somewhere else to live.
There has been a delay while she has adjusted to the injuries that she has received, and to having fled from home, and that is seen by the courts as a reason not to grant the injunction. They say that she could not possibly really need an injunction, because she did not go to court as soon as the incident happened. I suspect that most women who are beaten up repeatedly in violent relationships want to get away from the relationship, to seek medical attention and to get better, and to make sure that their children are safe. Going before a county court judge is not necessarily No. 1 on their list of things to do.
The law also fails women because of the way in which it treats as strangers people who have been but are no longer cohabiting. The only remedy available is a tort injunction—one of the old torts of assault, battery or trespass. The difficulty with those is that, if a woman goes to someone else's house to stay, perhaps as a lodger, or returns to her parents' home or that of another relative, she cannot obtain a trespass injunction because she is not the tenant or the owner-occupier; therefore, in law she cannot apply for such an injunction. She cannot apply for an injunction to stop the man coming to the place where she is living and assaulting her. There is no tort of harassment.
Moreover, no tort injunction carries the power of arrest, and that power is so important for women in such circumstances. If there is a power of arrest, at least if the man comes near her the police have an absolute obligation to arrest him and bring him before a court at the earliest opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred to domestic violence suffered by women from ethnic minorities involved in what we could describe as immigration cases. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. If a woman leaves a violent husband within 12 months of marriage, she risks deportation. I know that because a constituency case was recently brought to me, involving a woman who had obtained a judicial separation after eight months of marriage. The judge found that her husband's behaviour was such that it was unreasonable to expect her to continue to live with him, yet she has now received a letter from the immigration and nationality department telling her that she is on 28 days' notice to leave the country. That has happened through no fault of her own. That woman is a victim, and she is being treated shamefully by the application of our immigration rules.
We should also deal with the questions raised by the programme "The Bounty Hunter", which was on BBC2

some time ago, and which revealed how men in the Asian community make a nice living out of hunting like animals women who flee from domestic violence and violent relationships. The subterfuges that the bounty hunters use to track down women and drag them back home are alarming, and I hope that the Government will deal with the matter. I hope that the Minister will say something about it when he responds to the debate.
Reference has already been made to the attitude of the police. I welcome the change in their attitude, and have spoken to police officers in Bristol who have told me that they no longer treat such incidents as merely domestic matters, as they so often used to do in the past. In 1977, I took a friend who had been severely beaten up by her partner to the police station, and I remember being appalled by the pressure that was put on her not to bring proceedings. The police kept saying, "You'll have to go to court, and in the meantime you've got to live with him, so wouldn't it be better if you went home and patched things up?"
It is good that there have been some changes in attitudes, but it is important to recognise that both the police and the legal profession tend to give such work to young inexperienced people. In the legal profession it is seen as the "rough trade", and police officers tell me that such work is often given to people with little experience. As a barrister, I grew sick and tired of hearing other lawyers say, "I went to represent this woman and she said she was going to go back home. What a stupid woman!"
That attitude totally fails to recognise the position of most women who suffer domestic violence, which, as other hon. Members have said, often involves homelessness, and the way in which the rules on intentional homelessness operate. If one asks women victims of domestic violence what they want, they usually say, "I want things at home to go on as they are, except that I don't want him to beat me up any more." It would be a good thing if the police and the legal profession would adopt those changes in attitude.
With regard to the criminal law, we need different definitions of provocation and self-defence as defences to charges of murder and manslaughter, and we should also examine the way in which the rules of evidence operate against women. The law on self-defence is based on the notion of a punch-up in a pub, and the definition of provocation is based on the notion of a threat to a man's potency or virility. The way in which those definitions operate means that any victim of domestic violence who has not responded immediately is without the law. A well-founded fear of domestic violence should be a defence against such charges. We should also change rules such as the corroboration warning in the law on rape. That is an outrage to all women, and the House ought not to allow it to continue.
I welcome the Government's response to the part of the Select Committee report that deals with refuges. In 1988, I visited a refuge in a small town in central Sweden. It was beautifully appointed and well furnished, yet the people there apologised to me because they felt that it was not quite as smart as it might have been. Any woman who had seen a refuge in this country would have been astonished at how well appointed the Swedish refuge was. There was also immediate internal alarm contact with the local police.
National funding for a proper network of refuges is vital so that women can seek refuge quickly and safely for


themselves and their children, and there must be mechanisms for ensuring that those refuges become staging posts to enable women to escape from violent relationships and to rebuild their lives.
The law of this country cannot possibly be respected or properly applied when such a large section of the population feels that the remedies that ought to be there do not exist. The resources that ought to be in place are not there. It is important for the House to make it clear to men that such behaviour is not acceptable, it is not their right, we condemn it and it ought to stop.

Sir Dudley Smith: I had not intended to speak, but I was so interested in the various speeches that have been made that I wanted to refer briefly to one point.
I very much welcome the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), with most of which I agree. I would part company with the hon. Member for Bristol East (Ms Corston), in that it is not my experience that the police are giving enough attention to what we broadly call domestic violence.
My worry as a constituency Member of Parliament, which is probably replicated throughout the House, is that, because of the declining moral fabric of Britain over the past 25 years, many more people live together, often on a short-term basis. There are many cases where a woman, probably unwisely, has taken a man in or formed a liaison with him, and then discovered to her cost that he is a violent type because of drink, or is naturally violent. She then has the utmost difficulty in getting rid of him.
A number of cases have been brought to my attention in which women have been badly beaten up on a regular basis after barring their attacker from the house. The offences are committed with a great deal of guile. Harassment is the order of the day; it is not just banging on the door and coming in: there are all kinds of sneaky ways of getting into the house and attacking the woman on her way home from work or going out. One woman said to me, "It is all very well being battered around occasionally, but do I really have to be killed, seriously injured or hospitalised before something is done about it?"
We all know that the police are under great pressure because of rising crime statistics, and domestic cases have always taken a fairly low priority. When couples are not married and the man is on a determined course repeatedly to attack and batter the woman, action ought to be taken.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that women should not have to take this. Society ought to make an example of men who carry on in that way. The sooner we do it the better it will be, and the sooner the statistics will improve. It is all too easy for the wrong kind of man to be able to get away with it.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Everyone must agree that we are debating a serious and urgent issue when we consider that one in five murder victims are women killed by their partners or ex-partners, and one in three of all reported crimes against women result from domestic violence. We should also remember the high level

of unreported domestic violence which has blighted our society for hundreds of years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) has reminded us.
I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Select Committee's decision to investigate these matters. I also welcome the recommendations in the Select Committee report. However, I have one or two minor reservations. Why is there no recommendation on legal aid, although there are laudable words about its inadequacy? Why is there no recommendation about the training of the judiciary, which is equally important? I was also rather disappointed that there was no mention of the prosecution service having to lay down some guidelines. It is sometimes rather a mystery why the prosecution service proceeds or does not proceed with prosecutions.
The Government's response contains much that is to be welcomed, but I have some serious reservations. First, I join other hon. Members in regretting their decision not to have even consultation on the law of homicide.
We all know of several well publicised instances of women unjustly condemned on a charge of murder. The attention drawn to the subject by the soap opera "Brookside" will bring it into the public eye even more in the months ahead. I do not know how many hon. Members watch the series, but the plot deals with the reasons why women may kill their partners or ex-partners.
I wonder why the Select Committee ruled out a defence of self-preservation, as that would be another way of approaching the problem. Another reservation of mine concerns funding, which I shall refer to later. I am also concerned about the note of delay which creeps into the Government's response to the recommendation of a public education and awareness campaign. Perhaps they are a little reluctant to go down that path.
I want to say something about public education and awareness campaigns. In Edinburgh, part of which I represent, over the past few months there has been a high-profile and highly successful public education and awareness campaign called the zero tolerance campaign. I know that other local authorities are examining this initiative, and I hope that more local authorities and central Government will also look at it.
It is based fundamentally on challenging male behaviour. Those who have visited Edinburgh over the past few months will have seen a large number of posters with messages directed at men. For example, the fundamental message of the campaign is "Zero tolerance of violence against women". Another notable message is "Male abuse of power is a crime". There are many other messages that are challenging certain male assumptions.
Edinburgh district council's women's committee, which initiated the campaign, took the view at the end of the day that the root of the problem was the unequal power relations between men and women in society. There is a continuum from male attitudes of superiority to the slapping of women, which has been supported publicly by Sean Connery and many others. Just a few days ago, I saw a popular comedy programme just casually accepting that view. That level of violence is tolerated by thousands of people when it should not be, and the continuum proceeds to more drastic and serious violence.
The zero tolerance campaign aims to challenge those male attitudes and to link domestic violence with other male abuses of power. It has highlighted the crimes of rape and sexual abuse.
The campaign has also enlisted the support of the local newspaper, The Edinburgh Evening News, which has given it a great deal of coverage. That has helped to give the campaign a high profile, and I pay tribute to the newspaper, and to Jean West, the reporter who covered it so brilliantly.
I also suggest to the Government that, as all that work has been done in Edinburgh, and as they are supposed to be considering a public awareness campaign, perhaps they should consider extending it to the whole of Scotland. I am aware that the report refers only to England and Wales and that some of the detailed recommendations would have to be different for Scotland, but the issues are fundamentally the same. Perhaps the Government would like to consider extending the zero tolerance campaign as a pilot scheme throughout Scotland. Of course, I should like it to be extended throughout the United Kingdom.
There is a campaign by the Scottish Office, which is all right as far as it goes, but it targets women, telling them to behave in this way and take care in that way. It is okay as far as it goes. However, the Scottish Office campaign makes no attempt to target male behaviour, although that is the fundamental requirement of a public education and awareness campaign. I hope that that will be taken on board by the Scottish Office in Scotland and the Home Office in England and Wales.
Leaving aside the fundamental aspect of prevention and turning to the terrible realities that go on around us daily, I endorse what the Committee said about the importance of treating domestic violence as a crime and prosecuting people who perpetrate it. I am sure that we all agree that that has not been done enough in the past and, although it is improving, there is still plenty of room for improvement. I hope that the police and the prosecution service will take that on board.
As well as prosecution, women must be protected. Civil law is important in terms of the protection of women. Many good suggestions in the report will apply to England and Wales and in a slightly different way to Scotland. Many civil law remedies are available to a large number of women only if they have access to legal aid. Therefore, the section of the report that criticised the Government's legal aid cuts is important.
As I said, it is unfortunate that there was not a specific recommendation relating to legal aid. Nevertheless, there is the message that many women are not able to pursue civil remedies because of the cuts in legal aid and the reduction of the income level at which legal aid becomes applicable. Certainly, the Government will have to address that. I hope that they will get the message in the Select Committee report on that subject.
Another important aspect of protection relates to refuges. Clearly, there is a serious problem and, unless the Government are prepared to put money into refuges, it will continue. I am worried because I remember a Select Committee report in 1975 which said that there should be one family refuge place for every 10,000 people in the population, yet less than a third of that number exist at present. With this report, I hope that we will not have a similar gap between what is asked for and what is delivered. Aberdeen is the only city in Scotland with the level of refuges that was recommended by the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities.
The whole thrust of the Government's response is that all of the funding issues are for local authorities. At the end of the day, local authorities are largely funded by the Government, so there must be a role for central Government finance. If the Government are putting all of this emphasis on local authorities, why cannot we have ring-fenced money specifically for refuges? Unless we have refuges, many of the other recommendations in the report will fall down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred to the sort of things that are happening because there is not enough money. We heard that help lines are being shut down and there are no child care services. Perhaps some hon. Members saw the programme "First Sex" a couple of weeks ago, which showed that the organisation Refuge was at risk of being shut down because there was not enough money. Clearly, there is a crisis with regard to refuges. As the Select Committee emphasises, that is one of the central recommendations—if not the central one—in the report.
Time is running out, so I shall not talk about the other issues that I wanted to talk about. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) may talk about the Child Support Act, which impacts on this issue. I shall say a word about the social fund, which has not been mentioned. Domestic violence victims were removed from the highest category of that fund and that is another issue. Clearly, there are many issues. The Government said that they will accept some of them. I hope that they will accept more of them, and act with urgency on the ones that they seriously support.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am a member, published a strong report containing 42 positive recommendations. The Government's response was acceptable in a number of areas. However, in other areas, it seemed to have something of the cold antiseptic voice of the quiet man in the warm office trying to make the right sympathetic noises without committing the needed resources. The Government's sympathy was there.
Undoubtedly, Ministers are genuinely horrified by domestic violence and wish to reduce it. However, we need more than just sympathy—we need political will and, as the report calls for, political momentum to deal with the problems. Words of sympathy come cheap; action requires resources. The Government must be prepared to commit resources.
During the inquiry, we saw the extent of the problem. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred to an important visit that we made to the Islington police station. There we saw a card-index system that showed that one in 30 households in that area reported a domestic violence incident to the police. If we accept what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said—that only a small proportion of domestic violence incidents are reported—the incidence of domestic violence could well be much higher. It may even be as high as one in 10 households. Almost certainly, domestic violence incidents take place in most communities and on most streets in Britain.
The size of the problem does not seem to be recognised by the Government, local authorities and some of the other agencies that deal with the issue. I exempt from that criticism the police who, because of the increasing need to


deal with the problem, have demonstrated a willingness to examine it seriously. They are prepared to tackle the problem and amend their ways.
The Government have not been prepared to take the necessary initiatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) referred to one important initiative—the need to ensure that people are aware of the size of the problem. More awareness is needed to encourage preventive work and protective work. We must encourage people to recognise the need to spend money on an issue. We must ensure that attitudes in society are sufficiently censorious of domestic violence so that people report it to the police when they hear about it in other households. If people mention domestic violence in the pub or wherever, others must ensure that they are censorious of such behaviour and create a widespread view that it is unacceptable.
We must reduce the tolerance to domestic violence in some communities and raise awareness of the penalties for those who commit acts of domestic violence and the help that is available to victims of it. That is why, in recommendation 12, the Committee called for a campaign designed to raise the awareness, especially of the perpetrators and potential perpetrators as well as victims, of the criminality of domestic violence, the possibilities of redress and the seriousness with which the authorities view the matter.
The Government's response to the Committee is unclear. They appear to recognise the importance of the issue but are unwilling to fund and back the necessary public campaign. They have referred to the need for sensitivity, and we all accept that. However, the need for sensitivity should not prevent them from taking the action necessary to show the importance of the issue and ensure that people are fully aware of it.
The Metropolitan police gave this evidence to the Committee:
the examples of good practice in Canada, North America and Australia, where there is far more public awareness of domestic violence and policy due to an overall state-wide publicity programme. The programme includes Central Government and local Government publicised policy. There are television advertisements, roadside advertisements—a heightened public awareness through leaflets and statutory agencies".
The result of such a campaign can be social condemnation of domestic violence and a reduction of it. Therefore, it is important for the Government to commit resources to such a campaign.
It is also essential for the Government to commit resources to refuges. An all-party committee was able to reach a consensus on the importance of and the need for a national policy on refuges. The Government were vague and did not seem to appreciate the need for that sort of national policy. They were prepared to leave it to local authorities. The Government must recognise the importance of the provision of refuges. I hope that the Minister will respond more positively than he did in his written response to the Select Committee.
We need to ensure that there are more resources for legal aid, as the hon. Member for Rochdale rightly said. If victims of domestic violence, primarily women, face the withdrawal of access to legal aid, they face the withdrawal of access to remedies and the protection that they need. It is no good pretending that somehow everyone either has access to legal aid or can fund a court action to seek a remedy. That is simply not the case. A restriction on legal

aid, such as we have seen, is a restriction on access to the courts and justice. The Government must respond much more positively to that.
I call on the Government to reconsider their view on provocation. I endorse the views of the hon. Member for Ryedale. He stated eloquently that our Select Committee looked with carer at the issues of law on this, and that, although some of us were not convinced at the start, we were all certainly convinced by the end that the Government needed to look into the defence of provocation. The law is hung up on the issue of the time in which an incident occurs. Time is not the issue. The issue is whether the killing was a direct result of the perpetration of violence and the loss of self-control. The Government failed to address that in their response.
Southall Black Sisters produced poignant, forceful evidence about the problems of immigrants who come to marry, particularly women from the Indian sub-continent. Sometimes they face domestic violence within a year of arriving in Britain. Immigration laws fail to deal with that effectively. Simply to say that we shall treat each case on its merits is not good enough. The extent of the issue must be considered, yet the Government, in their response, do not seem to be prepared to do so.
The aim of the report is to give political momentum to tackling domestic violence. We need to increase awareness of the issue. Resources need to be committed. The Government, local authorities and agencies must give the issue appropriate priority. I hope that the Minister will do more today than simply make the right sympathetic noises. We want an expression of political will, an expression of willingness to find political momentum and an expression of willingness to provide the necessary resources. Will he give it?

Mr. Harry Cohen: I, too, welcome the Select Committee report. The Government should give priority to implementing its recommendations and finding the necessary resources. Mary Tuck, the former head of a working party set up by the Home Office, said:
Dealing with domestic violence is the single most preventive strategy we could put into practice against violent crime. Domestic violence is a central problem for society.
Therefore, the Home Office has concluded that in its own report.
Many statistics have been cited today and I shall refer to some of them. Islington council police unit commissioned a survey of domestic violence in north London, which reported at the end of March. Of those surveyed, 37 per cent. suffered from mental cruelty, for example being ridiculed, being deprived of money, clothes and sleep or being prevented from going out; 27 per cent. suffered from threats of violence or force; 32 per cent. suffered from actual violence, such, as being grabbed, punched or shaken; 26 per cent. suffered from a black eye; and 23 per cent. had been raped—made to have sex without consent. One of the most worrying aspects of the report is that only 37 per cent. of the men interviewed said that they would never respond violently to a partner. That is an appalling statistic. That attitude needs to be remedied until the figure is 100 per cent.
This Session I have introduced two Bills. One was on the defence of provocation and the other sought to change the law on rape. The Government deferred the matter of rape in marriage to the Law Commission, which


recommended that statute law should be changed—yet the Government have not acted on that. It is a scandal to leave it to common law, because what can be changed by judges can be changed back by judges. It should be on the statute that rape in marriage is a criminal office. I intended to read a letter I received about those Bills, but I have no time. In fact, I had lots of mail. Women describe horrific experiences, such as being used as a punchbag. Day after day, women and their children are at risk and could face terrible consequences.
Society's attitude to domestic violence is split. We think that all decent people, or at least the overwhelming majority, oppose domestic violence. The truth is that many think it permissible and part of machoism. Some men joke about it, while others deny its existence. That trend is getting worse as economic and other circumstances worsen. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) rightly pointed out how people with low self-esteem sometimes take out their feelings of frustration on their partners. The situation is worsening. The Government must initiate a public awareness campaign and take a stand in favour of zero tolerance of such behaviour.
I support what has been said about Southall Black Sisters. I know of many cases where women in a violent marriage depend on their husband for their status here and without him could be thrown out of the country. The Minister should regard domestic violence as an exceptional circumstance and allow such women to remain here as of right.
Hon. Members have referred to refuges. We should have a proper refuge network throughout the country, centrally co-ordinated and funded by the Government. The London Housing Unit in its research on England and Wales showed a considerable shortfall. The Government should deal urgently with that matter, especially with refuges that face considerable financial difficulties.
The Government's response to my Bill on the defence of provocation has been extremely disappointing. The current definition of provocation is inadequate and far too narrow. The Government do not recognise domestic violence as a mitigating circumstance. As a result, 30 or 40 women are probably in prison unjustly. I am campaigning on behalf of Sara Thornton. Those cases should be reviewed, and in my view the women should be released. Many such women do not get a fair trial. Often, at the time of the death they are suffering from dreadful trauma and guilt, so they cannot put up a proper defence. The law is inadequate in many respects. Our mandatory life sentence for murder is wholly inappropriate in such cases.
Concern has been expressed about revenge killings. We are talking about desperate women. It can be proved that they are desperate and have suffered cumulative violence. My Bill intended to make such a plea available to them. Most people, in the House and the country, argue that it should be on the statutue book. Ultimately it is for the authorities—the Crown Prosecution Service—and juries to decide whether a case is a revenge killing or whether there are mitigating circumstances, but the law should allow people to make that plea.
This is one of the most vital issues that the House should be tackling. I strongly support what has already been said—that the Government should act to find the

necessary resources, should have a public awareness campaign, and should also adopt a policy of zero tolerance of domestic violence.

Ms Joan Ruddock: First, I congratulate the Select Committee on producing such a comprehensive report on this important issue. It is unusual to hear the concerns of women raised in the House, and I only regret that this time the subject is so painful. It is customary for those on the Opposition Front Bench to congratulate all hon. Friends, but I should like to congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, which has been thoughtful and useful.
In the current climate of public concern about the level of crime and the increase in violent crime, the debate is opportune. Domestic violence is a crime—a violent crime and primarily a crime against women. I remind the House that almost half of all homicides of women are killings by a partner or ex-partner. A third of all reported crimes against women are domestic. Domestic violence is more common than street violence. It is a crime of epidemic proportions. In Greater London alone, reported attacks have almost doubled in the past two years; 9,200 attacks were reported last year and 30,000 women and children sought help and refuge during the same period. A further 100,000 contacted Women's Aid for support.
Domestic violence is not a new crime. The difference now is that women are increasingly less prepared to tolerate violence and more prepared to report it to the police and other agencies. One of the principal reasons why women finally come forward is for the sake of their children. Two out of every three women who go to refuges have young children, and evidence submitted by the Children's Legal Centre to the Select Committee showed that many children will have been assaulted and are already mentally and emotionally scarred from what they have witnessed, with untold results. Concern for their future is another reason for welcoming the seriousness with which domestic violence is beginning to be viewed.
In the past 18 months alone, a series of excellent reports have been published by Victim Support, the Law Commission and now the report that is the subject of this debate. What is remarkable about the reports is the consensus evident in the analysis and in the recommendations for action. Attention, however, is a long way from remedy and action. I welcome the fact that the Government have responded so quickly to the Home Affairs Select Committee report and I shall comment on it in detail later, but the Government's response is less than the wholehearted commitment to action that we and the Select Committee seek. I only hope that the interdepartmental working party on domestic violence, which I welcome, will take the Select Committee's recommendations further.
Domestic violence impacts on many areas of public policy and the law, and the Home Affairs Select Committee report was wide-ranging in its remit. I have time to comment on only a few of those areas, the first of which is public awareness.
Domestic violence cannot be viewed simply as another crime or a legal problem which can be eradicated by appropriate legal remedies. The reports that I have already mentioned all share the understanding that domestic violence is part of a wider social problem of women's


unequal position in society. Too often still, women are dependent on men socially and economically. Attempts by women to assert their independence and leave the marital home when necessary are constrained by that basic inequality.
At least 6 million women in Britain today earn poverty wages. The gap between men and women's earnings has barely narrowed in the past 15 years. Full-time working women still earn only about 70 per cent. of male earnings. Women also head up two thirds of the homeless families in Britain and, as the report published by the Commission on Social Justice this week showed, the number of homeless families rose by 46 per cent. during the 1980s, with 20 per cent. of people on incomes of less than £3,500 a year.
Equality for women in the workplace is essential if they are to control other aspects of their lives. I fear that, until we have a Labour Government and a Ministry for Women, British women will continue to be seriously disadvantaged in this society.
Social attitudes still reflect deep-seated views about the role of women and men in the family. Women are still accused in some circumstances of wanting to be abused or of deserving it. Conversely, they are blamed for not leaving after they have been beaten up. Their ambivalent feelings about leaving a man with whom they may have had a long relationship and may still be in love are viewed as a weakness. Domestic violence is thus often portrayed as a woman's rather than a man's problem, which is why it is crucial to raise public awareness.
I welcome the Select Committee's recommendation and hope that the Government will really—truly—adopt it. I strongly endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) about the zero tolerance campaign run in Edinburgh, which is a good example of an effective and sensitive campaign dealing with the issue of men's attitudes.
One of the basic tools for raising awareness must be adequate information, yet we still do not know the real extent of domestic violence. The Select Committee's first recommendation is that there must be nationally collected statistics on the issue, from which a proper strategy can be developed. I welcome the Government's acceptance that the present statistics are incomplete. I also welcome the additional studies being conducted by the Home Office.
Other hon. Members have mentioned women from minority ethnic communities. When violence towards a woman occurs in an ethnic minority community, the problems she faces are compounded. It may appear to her to be too daunting or even a betrayal to seek help outside her community. It may even be harder for her to become economically independent. Women from ethnic minority communities may also face, as we have heard today, racism and interrogation about their immigration status. We support the Select Committee's recommendation for further research into that problem.
As we have heard, under current immigration rules a spouse will normally be given permission to remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period of 12 months in which, in a sense, the marriage is tested by the Home Office. But women experiencing violence during that period and who leave home are faced with a possibility of deportation to their country of origin, where they may risk isolation, stigmatisation and have no economic independence. The case of Mamta Chopra, who was forced to flee and now faces deportation, shows that that 12-month rule is deeply discriminatory against women from ethnic

minority communities in abusive relationships. I endorse the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) that the immigration service be represented on the working group.
When a woman finally decides that she must leave and that she has no option, she is likely to be afraid, demoralised, undermined and desperate. Making that decision to leave leads her into a difficult legal and bureaucratic maze which she must negotiate and in which she needs support. One of the most powerful reasons for women having to stay is that they have nowhere to go, which is why the network of refuges in Britain is so tremendously important. As we have repeatedly heard, the provision is totally inadequate, and there is no excuse whatever for that. Eighteen years ago, the last Select Committee on the subject called for one refuge place per 10,000 population, but we still have less than one third of that number. The Minister must deal with that point today.
Many refuges are at crisis point because hard-pressed local authorities are cutting their grants. Local authorities cannot be expected to bear all the financial burden. It is clearly the responsibility of central Government to put resources into a network of women's refuges. I remind the Minister again of the Committee's strongly worded recommendation
that the first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central, co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country.
Interdepartmental discussions on refuge provision are not enough. Pushing the problem back to local authorities is totally unacceptable. The Government must take the lead in establishing a nationally funded network of refuges. The Government should recognise the extent of support for the proposals from all the relevant agencies, which recognise that, if women have no immediate place of shelter, all the agencies' good work will be wasted.
I also want to add my support to the recommendation that local authorities and housing associations give priority to victims of domestic violence for rehousing. In many areas, including mine, the new guidance is working, but there is a desperate shortage of affordable housing—a shortage which occurs directly because of Government policies. Once again, the Government are asking local authorities to do the impossible: to give priority to the most needy and at the same time to be fair to those thousands on the waiting lists. That cannot be done unless local authorities are allowed to produce the council housing that they know is needed in their areas to meet both ordinary need and the priority need of people fleeing domestic violence.
We know that there are many excellent initiatives involving inter-agency co-operation at local level. Such initiatives need to be encouraged. Local authorities and the police are now working in co-operation to co-ordinate the services and help available to women fleeing domestic violence. The Select Committee has made a number of recommendations relating to police practice, all of which are sensible and ought to be supported. The thrust of the recommendations is to ensure that police work on domestic violence is not marginalised in the police service or squeezed out by competing demands for funds. The Committee also recommends changes that will more clearly demonstrate to the public, particularly women, that the police are taking the issue seriously.
I am aware of many good practices which are being developed, although the police in their evidence agreed that progress was patchy nationwide. The domestic violence units established by the Metropolitan police in 62 of its 69 divisions have been successful, as they have been elsewhere, but it was clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee that a major reason for such units not being established in some areas was lack of resources.
There is now a widespread feeling that existing specialist and time-consuming work, such as that involved in domestic violence units, is threatened by the market philosophy of the Sheehy report. Perhaps the Minister—if he is listening—will tell the House how the work that is done in domestic violence units would be assessed by performance-related pay. While improvements in police practice still remain to be made, the most effective response comes from joint action. I commend, as others have, the practical example of joint action in Islington where the police, the probation service, the local authority and the safer cities programme have established a sound counselling and advice service.
I invite hon. Members to welcome a new initiative in my constituency, where the police have set up a specialist vulnerable persons unit incorporating the victims of domestic violence and racial attacks, and abused elderly victims all within one unit. The unit has, I believe, eight staff, and it will be an important experimental project which we should monitor carefully. Many of the initiatives have worked closely with the safer cities programme, but many of them are now jeopardised because the Government are cutting grants and closing some of the existing safer city projects. If the initiatives are worth while, surely they are worth supporting.
As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) clearly outlined in his report, the Committee considered changes in both the criminal and civil law. I shall mention the issue of provocation, referred to by other hon. Members. It has been rightly argued that the present law is confused and disadvantageous to women. An integral part of the law of provocation is that there must be sudden and temporary loss of self-control. However, a sudden loss of self-control and an immediate response to violence by a woman is likely to bring greater violence upon herself.
The case for provocation to take account of the slow burn—the reaction of a woman over many months, even years—is a strong one. While we believe that justice has now been achieved in the case of Kiranjit Ahluwalia, I must put on record our continuing concern for the fate of Sara Thornton, Sally Hyams and Emma Humphrys. All those cases have been taken up by the Rights of Women, and the women involved still seek justice in this country.
A change in the law on the issue would be a complex task and likely to attract strong opinions from practitioners and the public. For that reason, I endorse the Committee's recommendation to make a request to the Law Commission to produce a consultative document on the law of homicide and to the Government to bring forward proposals. Once again, the Government have given a disappointing reply which has completely failed to respond to the arguments made by so many influential and distinguished people. I hope that the unanimity in the House today will make an impression on the Minister.
Tackling domestic violence needs not only fine words, but concrete actions; it also needs money. The Government must not think that they can place all the responsibility on the shoulders of the police, local authorities or voluntary organisations. I look forward very much to a positive programme of action from the interdepartmental working group, which I hope will soon be announced to the House.
Whatever the financial cost to the Government of implementing all the recommendations of the Select Committee, the cost of not implementing them would be very much greater in terms of individual misery, and suffering among women, families and society. There would be a tremendous cost to the nation in terms of our police and social services, and our children's future.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am grateful to the House for this opportunity —my first—to discuss the serious problem of domestic violence.
We have all benefited today from the depth of knowledge evident on both sides of the House, and particularly from the recent work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Committee's Chairman. The members of the Committee are to be congratulated on their thoughtful investigation into the problems associated with domestic violence and the measures needed to tackle it.
The Government's response to the Committee was published on 29 June by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. That response reaffirmed our commitment to ensuring that domestic violence is tackled vigorously, and is treated as the crime it is. We also agreed with the Committee on the need for action against domestic violence to go beyond the criminal justice system, to meet the special needs of women and children affected by violence in the home, and to work towards prevention in the long term.
I am also grateful to the House for the warm welcome that the Government's response has received. I know that some Opposition Members would like the response to have gone further than it did, but there has been a general welcome to it tonight. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton described our response as measured, detailed and positive. The Select Committee's response may be a unique one from such a Committee to a Government.
Significant efforts have been made in recent years to improve the response to domestic violence, putting the needs of the victim at the centre of that response. The police and the courts are treating incidents of domestic violence with increasing seriousness. As a consequence, the signs are that more such crimes are coming out into the open.
Last week, it was brought home to me how dramatic the change can be. I paid a visit to Scotland Yard and spoke to the inspector in charge of co-ordinating the Metropolitan police's response to domestic violence, in which it is doing an excellent job. She told me that, in 1985, 770 cases of domestic violence assaults were recorded by


the police. Last year, there were over 9,800 recorded cases, and a quarter of all recorded assaults in London last year were domestic.
We still do not have a complete picture of the true extent of domestic violence. New surveys are planned to help us to find out more, but figures like those held by Scotland Yard will leave no one in any doubt of the challenges that are facing the police, local agencies and others in dealing with domestic violence.
Our response to the Select Committee report set out the plans we have to take work forward across Government and consider what new initiatives may be needed. In many areas, such as the criminal justice response, civil provisions, the welfare of victims, encouraging local action and long-term prevention, we are actively pursuing improvements.
Recent initiatives have been directed chiefly towards ensuring that the police and courts treat violence within relationships as seriously as assaults by total strangers. Three years ago this month, the Government issued guidance to police throughout United Kingdom on the need for a quick and effective response, taking account of the overriding need to protect victims. Within a year of the guidance, all police forces in England and Wales had developed clear policies on domestic violence, and most had introduced specific improvements to their response.
The Government agree with the Select Committee on the need to ensure that new policies lead to real changes. That is why a study is assessing the impact of the guidance on police forces in England and Wales in handling cases of domestic violence. An initial survey provided an overall picture in all forces. Interviews are now being conducted in five selected force areas with victims, police officers and other agencies in contact with the police.
In response to the Committee's recommendation, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has decided that domestic violence is to be a core subject for next year's inspection programme. The inspectorate will also formulate advice for police forces to ensure that domestic violence units are not marginalised.
In addition, researchers who are monitoring the arrest of suspects and decisions that are taken by the police in relation to proceedings have been asked to classify incidents involving domestic violence separately from other types of violence. The findings from all these exercises will inform future action, and will help to develop further the police response to violence within the home.
One of the key elements of strategy for tackling domestic violence is that perpetrators are brought to justice. As with the police response, there needs to be a consistent approach, and to that end the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance to all chief prosecutors about how they and their staff should deal with such cases. The CPS has also published a statement of its prosecution policy, which explains the factors relevant to the review and prosecution of domestic violence cases.
We will continue to stress the importance of treating domestic violence as seriously as we would treat violence outside the home. We also need to bear in mind the special needs of the victims of the crimes. Those needs were brought home to me when I visited the domestic violence unit run by Wandsworth police, and heard from two victims who had suffered over a number of years.
The Government recognise how important it is to provide immediate support and places of safety for those

who are escaping from domestic violence. The guidance issued to the police stressed that victims of assault should be put in touch with support services. Such services can play a vital role in providing women not only with practical help and advice but with the emotional support they need—assuring them that they are not alone and that the violence is not their fault. That point was made by some hon. Members. Some 375 local victim support services are benefiting this year from Government funding of £8·4 million. In addition, the four women's aid federations also receive grant aid from the Government.
As we made clear in the response to the Select Committee's report, we also recognise the valuable role that is played by refuges in providing emergency accommodation and more long-term support for victims of domestic violence. We paid close attention to the points made by the Committee about the level of refuge provision in this country and the effect that that could have on overall response to domestic violence.
However, in principle we maintain the view that effective local support services, including refuges, are best provided at local level. Such provision can be based on an assessment of local needs and take into account the wider local response. Moreover, in the long term we must continue to pursue policies in other areas that will help more women to stay in their homes and reduce the need for such an enormous and desperate upheaval.
Refuge provision is to be one of a number of matters that will be discussed by the interdepartmental group on domestic violence. I have listened carefully to the views expressed here this afternoon, and tomorrow I am to meet the Women's Aid Federation of England. I want to hear its ideas, and I will think carefully about what it has to say as we take this work forward.
The Government welcome the Committee's endorsement of a number of permanent and experimental schemes that are being funded to provide support for victims during the legal process. To assist those who are attending court, the Crown court witness scheme started on a pilot basis in 1990 has now been permanently established. There are now schemes in 36 Crown court centres, with more planned to provide practical advice and emotional support to witnesses in criminal cases.
The Home Office programme development unit was set up last year to fund innovative local projects in the field of crime and criminal justice. Two such programmes are concerned with increasing and improving the criminal justice response to domestic violence, backed up with an increased range of services to support women and meet their welfare needs.
I saw that the Committee visited one of the projects in Islington, where, since February, a skilled civilian team has been attached to the police to work with women victims. The team can undertake immediate crisis counselling, to provide information and to refer women to other agencies in the area with whom the team has established close links. The project aims to encourage the use of legal sanctions, a prompt response to referrals and greater awareness of domestic violence within the community.
In Leeds, a package of projects has been set up to help identify the problems that are experienced by victims of domestic violence in gaining access to support services and to experiment with different responses. A civil court and criminal justice forum has been established to encourage understanding of the victim's needs and to provide an advocacy service to support women who are going to


court. Specialised counsellors have also been attached to two local GP surgeries to provide specialised help and information.
Those two different experimental approaches are being evaluated closely. The findings will be disseminated widely to share the lessons that have been learned, and will inform future practical policy development.

Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend has no responsibility for the judiciary, but will he tell me whether magistrates are being encompassed in the extra information which will be disseminated to give an end result of a better approach to the problem?

Mr. Maclean: I assure my hon. Friend that we want to ensure that all involved in criminal law, including magistrates, are fully informed of the resources and information available, particularly when it comes to sentencing offenders. The Government will make sure that magistrates are aware of the range of possibilities open to them.
The Select Commitee rightly identified the need for action against domestic violence which went beyond the criminal justice system. A wider response, involving not only Government but communities and local agencies, is essential. The Government have a role in encouraging local action and in disseminating good practice. More than 100 local schemes to help victims of domestic violence have been funded through the Home Office safer cities projects. In Derby, Hull, Islington and Tower Hamlets, safer cities money is funding domestic violence workers.
In Leicester, a major initiative has been set up to fit emergency alarms in the homes of women at risk from their partners. Similar schemes operate in Bradford and Islington. Multi-agency groups designed to improve local co-ordination have started in Coventry, Hull and Wandsworth. We what to build on the many excellent local initiatives which are being developed throughout the country.

Ms Corston: If that is the case, will the Minister explain why the Government have found it appropriate to cut safer cities funding?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady will probably be slightly embarrassed when she discovers that we have expanded the safer cities programme. We expect to increase the number of cities covered from 20 to 40.
One of the tasks of the interdepartmental working group will be to consider how good practice can best be promoted. In particular, we shall consider ways of strengthening co-ordination at local level. Statutory and non-statutory organisations involved in tackling domestic violence have much to gain from exchanging ideas and practices and developing a shared understanding of how they can best respond collectively to domestic violence. Above all, the victims of domestic violence will benefit most from improved local co-ordination.
The way forward must also include steps to prevent domestic violence. One form of prevention which the Select Committee considered involved work with offenders to prevent future reoffending. The Home Office and the Scottish Office are jointly funding a research study to evaluate two innovative projects—the CHANGE project

in Central region and the probation project in Lothian. Those projects aim to change the behaviour of men who abuse their partner.
We recognise the importance of raising awareness throughout society of domestic violence in schools, among professionals in services which may come into contact with domestic violence and among the public at large. The National Curriculum Council's guidance to schools on health education suggests that both sex education and family life education should be key components of the curriculum.
We agree with the Select Committee that there is a clear need for more public information on domestic violence. Such information should emphasise that domestic violence is against the law. It should encourage victims to seek help and advice, and it should explain where such assistance is to be found. The interdepartmental group will give thought to what more can be done and how it might be achieved.
Many hon. Members referred to the law on provocation in homicide. If the House will permit me, I should like to remind it of what we said in our response:
As the Committee noted, the law has responded with flexibility to the particular circumstances of domestic violence victims, whilst maintaining the distinction between a less culpable (though still unlawful) reaction to provocation and murder. The Government does not. consider that the Law Commission's proposal on provocation would improve the courts' ability to draw that distinction in individual cases and has no current plans to amend the law in this area. The Government takes the view that the law on provocation, particularly in the light of the Lord Chief Justice's remarks in Ahluwalia, maintains a proper balance between a reluctance on the one hand to exonerate pre-meditated revenge killing and a desire to leave a judgment on the facts of the individual case to the jury. The law does not, in the Government's view, require the reaction to provocation to be instantaneous. However, it is quite right that evidence of pre-meditation should undermine a defence of provocation. A delay between the provoking circumstance and the act of killing may also provide evidence to undermine such a defence, but that is for the jury to decide on the facts before them. The Government does not share the Committee's view that the law is uncertain or unclear.

Mrs. Roche: The Minister rightly quoted the Lord Chief Justice. Does he agree that the Lord Chief Justice's remarks on provocation are obiter dicta? Does he feel that a new definition of the law is therefore necessary?

Mr. Maclean: No, I do not agree. The Select Committee's point was that the law was inflexible and could not respond to modern circumstances. It is clear that the law can be flexible and can change, as we have seen in the development of cases which resulted in Ahluwalia.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: No. I must allow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton a few minutes to respond.
In the short time available to me today, I hope that I have provided an idea of the range of work currently in hand, and of our plans for the future. I have shown that progress has been made in recent years. But the Government accept that more can and should be done.
Since the Select Committee finished its investigation, we have begun the process of developing our proposals for future action in a committed and co-ordinated way. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), asked me whether the group had met. The


official working group on domestic violence has met twice. It has discussed areas in which work can be taken forward at national and local level.
I can inform the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) that, thanks to the Scottish Office representatives in Edinburgh, the Edinburgh zero tolerance campaign was brought before the interdepartmental working group. The group has discussed and examined the campaign.
We believe that the interdepartmental group will make a significant contribution to co-ordinating our policies to tackle all facets of domestic violence. It is certainly not the end of the matter simply because the Select Committee has produced a report, the Government have responded to it, and we have had this debate. I assure the House that we shall continue to give this serious and widespread problem the priority that it deserves.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: We have had an excellent debate, and I shall highlight some of the features that have made it so. First, there was cross-party agreement. There was a lot of light and little heat, which will have made it appallingly bad television. Secondly, there was agreement about the size of the problem and the matters which needed to be dealt with. Thirdly, the need for more refuges was highlighted. Such refuges need central funding, whether it is dispensed by local authorities or not.
Fourthly, there was a common welcome for the change in police culture. Domestic violence is now treated as a crime. The fact of arrest may provide a deterrent. Fifthly, there was agreement on the confusion of the law, which needs to be simplified. Out of that should also come better access to legal aid for afflicted women, and more victim-friendly court procedures.
Sixthly, the value of publicity was emphasised. We should bring it home to people that they are not alone if they go to complain about the treatment that they have received in their home. Seventhly, the problems of ethnic minority women were well covered in the debate.
Eighthly, disappointment was expressed that the changes which the Committee recommended on provocation were not welcomed by the Government. I hope that they will reconsider, because the feeling in the Committee was strongly that there should be some clarification. If the Law Commission has decided that the changes would be a good thing, a good thing they are likely to be. I do not suppose for a moment that the Lord Chief Justice would oppose the wishes of the Law Commission on that matter.
Ninthly, there was a broad welcome for the report. It is unusual for Select Committee reports to receive that response. It is also unusual to receive a reasonably enthusiastic response from the Government. The Government response was not unreasonable in all the circumstances. There may even have been some indication that there is a need for positive action and that the cost of meeting some of our requirements and our recommendations would be more than covered by the savings in the rest of system if there is inaction.
For all those reasons, it has been an excellent debate. It provides justification for the Select Committee system, it provides justification for having half a day to debate its provisions, and, hopefully, the beneficiaries of it all will be the victims of domestic violence.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

Croydon Tramlink Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. David Congdon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This private Bill is jointly promoted by London Regional Transport and the London borough of Croydon, and I am pleased to introduce it. The purpose of the Bill is to seek powers to enable the construction and operation of a tram system to be known as tramlink, connecting the centre of Croydon to Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington.
London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services in Greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of Greater London, and to the efficiency, economy and safety of operation. Croydon council has numerous statutory duties, especially as a highway planning authority, and is also empowered to produce an economic strategy. The new unitary development plan for Croydon has identified the need to develop efficient and reliable public transport as an attractive alternative to the car, while, at the same time, promoting environmental policies as an important consideration in any new developments. The council considers tramlink—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about environmental policies, why have the promoters not been able to respond to the petition from the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association? They suggest that, since much of the scheme will take up public open space, it would be logical for the promoters to find compensatory open space for the land.

Mr. Congdon: The scheme has been designed to minimise the impact on open space. I shall say a few more words about that later. However, there is already a large amount of valuable open space in Croydon and the promoters believe that the impact on open space would be limited; therefore, they were not able to meet the demands that have been outlined by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It is significant that the Association of Croydon Conservation Societies supports the Bill.
I am sure that hon. Members are aware that London is suffering from severe congestion in its public transportation system, both on roads and on the public transport network. The CBI has estimated that the cost of the congestion of London's transport system amounts to a staggering £10 billion per annum. Hon. Members will also be aware of the pollution effects of cars on the environment. Studies have been undertaken to propose long-term solutions to those problems in central and Greater London.
Following the successful promotion of the scheme to authorise the construction of the Docklands light railway, London Regional Transport and British Rail carried out a joint study into the contribution that light railways could make to the improvement of transport in London. A report published in 1986 identified a number of areas where light railways could be of value. Chief among those was a system based on Croydon, using a mixture of BR lines and new construction to link Croydon with its

adjoining boroughs. Further work was carried out with the active co-operation of the local council, and in 1987 a system of three routes was identified as economically viable, physically possible and of great benefit to the economic life of the area.
In 1989, further reports were prepared for the Department of Transport on the transport problems of various parts of London. One of those, the south London assessment study, related to Croydon and its adjoining boroughs. The report identified existing traffic problems and traffic congestion as the most important issue. Those reports generated a lot of concern in south London, because their key proposal to alleviate the transport problem in London was major, massive road building. Politicians of all parties and local interest groups objected strongly to those proposals, and they were rightly dropped.
The reports also examined other proposals such as traffic management measures, junction improvements, road widening and new routes. Bus priority measures and the restructuring of bus and British Rail routes were also included. Croydon council has implemented many of those road and junction improvements to make better use of the existing road network, but it also concluded that a more ambitious approach to the problems of congestion was required, which, at the same time, would offer substantial environmental and economic benefits.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I follow my hon. Friend's logic about the need to ease congestion, and I share his feelings about problems with building more roads, but does he agree that it would be far better to use existing British Rail infrastructure to improve links in that part of London rather than put in new infrastructure? Does he accept that running trams down the centre of roads in Croydon will hardly ease traffic congestion?

Mr. Congdon: The Bill proposes using a lot of existing British Rail track. However, there are problems because British Rail track is quite inflexible and difficult to extend to other areas. One of the advantages of introducing a light rail system is the greater flexibility to extend it to other areas.
My hon. Friend is right to mention impact on roads where light rail has to run, but it is possible, with good design and traffic management measures, to minimise any impact to enable the light rail to run on existing roads.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that the first constituency in the country to use electric trams was my own of Blackpool. We were the one town, not only in this country but in western Europe, never to abandon trams. We are delighted that my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Croydon are proposing to bring back trams, because they are very successful. I know that his scheme is based on the one that is already operating in Manchester. I strongly support his comments about the ability of tram schemes to lessen congestion and to run along roads.

Mr. Congdon: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Like many hon. Members, I have experienced the joys of a Blackpool tram on a wet and windy night at certain party conferences in that illustrious resort. I have also visited Manchester. The small impact of Manchester's light rail system in terms of noise and visual intrusion is striking. At one stage during the drawing up of the proposals for the


light rail system, I had the pleasure of visiting Wimbledon. The contrast between the noise of British Rail trains on the track and light rail has to be heard to be believed.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has trodden the path between Croydon and Wimbledon, a path that we hope will become a light rail in due course. I look forward to much interchange between our constituencies.
To take up the logic of my hon. Friend's point about using existing rail, as would be the case in my constituency, that is nonsense if one does not continue the logic so that the rail ends where the existing rail at present terminates at Wimbledon station. I understand that the proposals are for a terminus elsewhere, which would be nonsense for my constituency.

Mr. Congdon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the promoters would have preferred an interchange into platform 10 at Wimbledon station. When the Bill was deposited, it was quite clear that no agreement could be reached with British Rail, which understandably took the view that it might want to extend other services for which it would use platform 10. That has caused my hon. Friend some concern, as it has some people in Merton. Now that the issue has been reviewed, although it was thought at one stage that the proposal would run into the buffers, British Rail considers that there is merit in looking at it again. A feasibility study by BR has stated that in principle it is prepared to allow tramlink to use platform 10.
I know that the promoters hope that discussions with BR will continue, to arrive at the solution that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes)—and they—would like, as the scheme would greatly benefit from a full interchange at Wimbledon station. There is no doubt that the proposal in the Bill has always been viewed as a second best alternative. We would like the full interchange at Wimbledon along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.
Earlier, I was discussing the studies carried out in Croydon. The council concluded that the tramlink scheme offered the prospect of a revitalised public transport system and a credible alternative to transport by car. It also concluded that the system could be reliable, quiet, efficient and accessible to all. It would improve the environment and the amenities of the locality. As a result of this conclusion, Croydon council resolved to develop tramlink in conjunction with LRT.
Before becoming a Member of this House I had the pleasure of serving as a councillor in Croydon for 16 years, the last six of them as deputy leader to Sir Peter Bowness. In that capacity, I was a member of the tramlink working party, set up to enable senior members from both sides of the council—including the leader, deputy leader, Councillor Mary Walker, who was leader of the Labour group, and others—to make progress with the proposal and to offer guidance to officers working on the complex issues involved.
I pay tribute to the genuinely bipartisan approach adopted by all in that exercise. I also pay tribute to the commitment of members and officers of the council. From this cross-party coalition there emerged a recognition of the significant benefits that the scheme would bring to the area. I hope that the same bipartisan approach will be shown in the House tonight.
The project is, and has been, an example of how good cross-party support for a scheme can bring great benefits to an area. It is also an excellent example of local government working well to the benefit of its people.
The scheme would connect central Croydon with Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington. The Wimbledon branch would extend frorn the terminus near or—I hope—at the BR station to central Croydon. The line will use the existing BR branch line and will replace the rail service between Wimbledon and West Croydon. It will provide for an interchange with other BR services at Wimbledon, Mitcham junction and West Croydon. The line will provide a more frequent and attractive service, with additional stops connecting residential areas with rail services into London.
The branch connecting central Croydon to Beckenham will share an existing alignment with British Rail services. A disused British Rail alignment will also be used, and new track will be constructed where necessary. This line will connect the highly developed commuter areas of Beckenham, Elmers End and Woodside with Croydon, as well as providing an interchange with British Rail services at Beckenham.

Mr. Merchant: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the interchange at Beckenham junction will not run into Beckenham junction station but, like the one a t Wimbledon, will be of the type that will involve passengers wishing to change from tramlink to British Rail, or vice versa, coming out of one station, walking down the road and going into another? It is thus incorrect to describe it as an interchange.
Secondly, is my hon. Friend aware of the strong opposition to the scheme in my constituency? It also is bipartisan, embracing the Labour and Conservative parties in the area.

Mr. Congdon: I understand some of my hon. Friend's concerns about Beckenham, but I should have thought that the interchange was a reasonable way of enabling people to transfer from one service to another. I emphasise that the whole link, from the edge of the borough of Croydon into Beckenham junction, runs along existing British Rail track. We are not even talking about taking up track, as we would be in some parts of Croydon. The track is still on the ground, providing BR services.

Mr. Merchant: I apologise for pressing my hon. Friend on this, but I must correct him. He has just told the House that a section of the line will be newly built, running in my constituency along parts of South Norwood country park.

Mr. Congdon: I apologise if I have misled my hon. Friend. I was taking into account the fact that, under a proposal recently agreed by the Boundary Commission, the park will shortly become part of the London borough of Croydon. Anyhow, once the line leaves the country park, it runs entirely on British Rail's existing track. I am happy to clarify the matter.
The third route, the light rail branch to New Addington, starts off using a partly disused British Rail alignment, but thereafter most of the route into New Addington has to be built through open land. By that I mean that, in the main, it goes along the edge of open space, not across the middle of it. This new line will provide the first ever rail service to the New Addington


estate. New Addington has a population of about 25,000 and is the largest residential area in London without a rail service.
The central section of tramlink comprises a loop connecting West and East Croydon BR stations to the Wimbledon, Beckenham and New Addington branches of tramlink. This section will be built in the street as a conventional tramway, incorporating a variety of road traffic schemes to integrate the new system with the transport network.
The promoters are anxious that tramlink should meet, as far as possible, the needs of all members of the community, with particular attention to the needs of the elderly and the disabled. Accordingly, they are committed to making the whole system accessible to people with disabilities. All aspects of the scheme, including the design of the stops and rolling stock, will be subject to the closest scrutiny, to maximise accessibility. An important example of this is the fact that the floor level of the trams will be very low, allowing easy access from raised footways and low platforms to be provided at tram stops.
I know from my involvement with the working party in Croydon that great care has been taken to minimise the impact on homes and on the environment. For example, to connect New Addington with central Croydon, the system has to cross some very sensitive environmental areas—especially Addington hills, an attractive wooded area. Members of the working party were most concerned that the initial proposals would have meant a line running straight through the middle of this valuable open land. That working party felt it essential that the line should, instead, run up the edge of Addington hills. After a lot of technical discussion, the experts, I am pleased to say, came up with the proposal in the Bill. Consequently, the route runs along the edge of the road and does not cut straight through Addington hills.
That is a very good example of the promoters' desire not to cause environmental difficulties, particularly to valuable open space. I am pleased to say that that sensitive approach to crucial environmental issues adopted by the working party and the promoters has underpinned the development of the scheme. I believe that it now achieves its objectives with the minimum impact on the local environment.
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I do not intend to go through the Bill clause by clause, although they will want to know about one or two. of its important features. It is promoted by London Regional Transport and Croydon council. It is intended that the construction and operation of tramlink will be undertaken by the private sector, which will bear the commercial risks and responsibility for the success of the system.

Mr. Bennett: Assuming that the Bill gains Royal Assent, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the whole scheme will be completed as one entity, or is there a risk that the private sector may decide that one bit is financially viable and other bits are not?

Mr. Congdon: I welcome the hon. Member's intervention. The promoters' intention, as I understand it, is that all parts of the scheme will be built and financed by the private sector and that it will stand or fall in its entirety.
A very important part of the system is the link to New Addington. That link is a costly part of the scheme because it involves the construction of much new track. It provides a valuable link to the large community of 25,000 people, who currently do not have a rail link and are totally dependent on buses or cars. We all know the problems of getting into urban centres in the rush hour, when we can be subject to all sorts of delay. The proposed link will offer those people a particular benefit, and that is why it is part of the integral system.
The key part of the scheme is that the commercial risks and responsibilities rest with the private sector. It will provide the major part of the funding. An element of Government funding could well be required, but that would have to reflect the public benefits that the scheme will generate, especially to other route users. The major proportion of the total construction cost would still be provided by the private sector. No subsidy will be provided by London Transport or Croydon council for the operation of the system.
The scheme is an excellent example of how the private sector can make a valuable contribution to the provision of transport infrastructure. I know that the Government attach great importance to the private sector assuming such a role, and it is a further reason why I am happy to support the Bill.
Such an arrangement has the distinct advantages of easing the burden on the public purse by maximising the private sector contribution to the scheme at a time when there are many competing demands for new transport projects. It will also reap the benefits of private sector enterprise and expertise. Such active co-operation will allow the promoters to call upon considerable worldwide expertise in the introduction and operation of modern light railway systems.
The private sector is already heavily involved in the scheme. The project development group, comprising London Regional Transport, Croydon council and their three selected private sector partners—including a major British construction company—has begun to take forward the development and detailed design of tramlink. The private sector participants are already—I stress the word "already"—committing their own resources to the process.
The scheme enjoys the unanimous support of Croydon council, which has voted in favour of it, and is strongly supported by the Croydon chamber of commerce and industry, which is a consortium of 1,300 local businesses. The scheme is also supported in principle by local trade associations, environmental groups and the neighbouring boroughs of Bromley. Sutton and Merton. A high degree of public support for it was expressed during the consultation period. There are some local objectors, and I welcome the fact that they will have the opportunity to express their concern in Committee.
Tramlink provides an exciting opportunity to introduce a modern, clean, reliable and, above all, safe transport system, which will enhance the quality of public transport in a large area of south London. It will improve the environment by encouraging the use of tramlink for many business and leisure journeys. It will offer for the first time a congestion-free alternative to using a car for travel between major commercial, retail and residential centres. London needs and deserves the best system of modern, environmentally friendly and convenient public transport.
The Bill has completed all its stages in the other place, and has been closely scrutinised by a Select Committee


there. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is a most worthwhile scheme that should be given every encouragement. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that a Select Committee of the House can have the same opportunity to examine the scheme in detail.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not plan to oppose the Bill at this stage, but I wish to make it clear that I have some misgivings about it. I am firmly in favour of the development of new tramways, because if we are to solve congestion on our roads, they have a very useful future.
It is important that the people who promote such new schemes persuade the local communities that the entire scheme is worth while. At least one Conservative Member has referred to the experience gained in Manchester. It should be noted that in Manchester the schemes that have been brought into use have basically used existing British Rail track and service. A small amount of track has been constructed within the city centre. In trying to develop new schemes in Greater Manchester, considerable problems have arisen when the developers have wanted to run the tramway down residential roads. I know that you will call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say too much about Manchester, but it is important to recognise that that system represents the transfer from a railway system to a tramway system.
On many occasions in the House, I have suggested that the procedure in which we are involved is a total farce. This may be the last occasion that the House has to go through this pantomime with a works Bill. Most hon. Members will be aware that, some 18 months ago, the House passed the Transport and Works Act 1992, under which we developed a much more sensible way in which to deal with such Bills.
The only reason that we are dealing with the Bill now is that it officially started its progress in the House of Lords under the old procedure. It was generally accepted that anything that had been originally presented as a private Bill should be allowed to continue in that fashion, but that we would not let any future Bills follow that process.
I think that the Bill demonstrates the faults in the old procedure. It must be nearly two years since the Bill was originally tabled. The whole process of private Bills was designed to encourage the promoters to negotiate with the petitioners and agree a solution that was acceptable to everyone. It is quite clear that the Bill had a heavily contested passage through the House of Lords and, equally, it will have a heavily contested passage through the House.
I am very disappointed that the promoters have not taken more time to meet the ramblers and others who have objections to the loss of open space without compensation, and to find a way of meeting their objections. I would plead with the promoters, even at this late stage, to enter into negotiation.
As many hon. Members know, it is easy to spin out the procedures involved in this type of Bill. No doubt, in a week or two, we will have a carry-over motion, where there will be scope for several hours of debate. It may be necessary for the promoters to find 100 Members for the closure. Depending on the day on which the motion is tabled, that could cause considerable difficulty.
Then there will be the Committee stage, which is supposed to be a very judicial process, in which four hon. Members, who know nothing about the scheme, are selected to listen to the objectors. We know that there are often manipulations behind the scenes concerning who is selected as Chairman of the Committee. Two votes may well decide the outcome of the scheme. If the Government are enthusiastic, the Chairman will come from the Government side. That seems to have more influence on how a proposal progresses than all the arguments of the objectors. Even when the Bill has been through that process, there can still be a Committee stage with amendments and a whole series of other procedures that can drag it out.
If the scheme is really worthy, it seems logical for the promoters to do some deals at this stage to get rid of the objections and find a compromise with the objectors so that they can speed the Bill on its way. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to return to the subject.
I will concentrate my remarks now on the points put to me by the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association. If such schemes are worth while and if they are going to reduce congestion and speed up transport, it should be possible to compensate for the open space that is taken by the scheme with other pieces of open space. In most places, promoters of light public transport schemes have made great efforts to find compensating land.
It is sad that, on this occasion, Croydon council and London Regional Transport have been unwilling to find that compensating land, not because it is impossible to find any, but because of the economics involved. I stand to be corrected, but I think that it is London Regional Transport that wants to make a profit out of land that it can sell on the open market and LRT is not prepared to offer it as compensation for the land that has been taken.
I would argue strongly that, in almost all our urban areas, preserving open space is important. Obviously, it must sometimes be taken for schemes, but it is usually possible to find some land to compensate for it.

Mr. Merchant: I support the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Is he aware that the same problem exists in the southern end of the Beckenham area, where the South Norwood country park will be traversed by new construction for tramlink? That will detract from a valuable amenity in the area and people feel that, if that has to be done, compensating land should be provided.

Mr. Bennett: I do not want to get into the detailed geography of the area, because I do not know it very well, having looked at the area on the map at fairly short notice, and also because it has been a long time since my grandmother lived in Beckenham and I used to go out to some of those places. If I were pushed, I could take the House on a ramble around my childhood activities in the area and point out that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I will not be tempted tonight, but I might have to do so on another occasion.
I could point out that many of the places over which I could have rambled some 40 years ago have now been built on. One of the problems in most of our urban areas is that open space has been substantially taken up by housing. As a result, we lose the open space for animals and vegetation. Often, the land becomes fragmented and its quality is destroyed.
Kids also lose open space where they can go and, without breaking the law, get up to a certain amount of mischief. Such activity can be extremely annoying if it occurs at the bottom of one's garden or on a street corner where a gang of teenagers congregate. Kids often make a noise. When someone comes out and tries to move them on, there may be a bit of friction. It might become a bit of a game, people may become annoyed and then the police are called in.
It is very difficult for the police if, strictly speaking, the law is not being broken. However, the police want to try to calm such situations down. If there is informal open space, youngsters almost always disappear there and do not annoy adults or pensioners. Where space is taken in such a scheme, it is very important that some space is provided as compensation.

Mr. Congdon: The particular piece of open space to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) referred is South Norwood country park, which was created only a few years ago. It comprises 150 acres of open space. Even if we accept the objectors' statement about tramlink taking 13 acres—frankly, nowhere near that amount will be taken—we must put that into context and bear in mind the 150 acres, which were created as open space, on which it had been proposed to build housing and put light industry. The fact that the council decided to designate the land as a country park shows the seriousness that it attaches to creating open space. The council would certainly not wish to see any open space destroyed.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman referred to 13 acres. Let us not argue about whether it is 10 acres or 13 acres. Let us just see whether some land can be provided as compensation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell me how much of Croydon and the surrounding authority areas has been lost to housing and other developments since 1970. I suspect that a very large area of those authorities has been lost as open space.
I accept that part of the scheme crosses the country park. However, would it not be far more useful if compensation for that—if it cannot be added to the surroundings of the country park, which may be very good from the point of view of nature conservation—were provided in areas which, according to the map, appear to be very densely populated and which lack informal space where youngsters can get away from adults and not commit crime, but give vent to high spirits? Such activity is only natural for youngsters, but it can be very annoying if it happens at the bottom of one's garden or close to it.
I do not want to delay the House much longer today, but I want to set down a very firm marker. Under this procedure or under the new procedure for making orders, we should encourage people to believe that if they produce tramway schemes or any other works scheme that would take open space, they should look around for open space to compensate for that.
It would be particularly unfortunate if the argument for not providing compensatory land was not that such land is impossible to find, but that there are costs involved in providing that compensatory scheme. Although I will not vote against Second Reading today, I set down a marker

that, if the promoters want to get the scheme into place quickly, they should find some way of meeting the objections of ramblers and the Open Spaces Society.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I support the Bill and agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the procedures that we are following. Many of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised have been raised locally and I am glad that he is prepared to keep his options open at the moment and will not oppose the Bill at this stage.
After all, the Bill relates to the principle of tramlink. It is certainly not the final word. It is an enabling Bill which simply provides for the transfer of powers to a private operator to construct and operate tramlink. The promoters can analyse whether they can raise the necessary funding and whether the construction is viable. They can then come back and persuade everyone that they have the right answers.
The tramlink scheme does not affect the south of the borough, which I have the privilege to represent. There are no proposals for lines to go down to Croydon, South, but I support the Bill because I believe that the economic development of Croydon is paramount, and that the tramlink will assist the economic development of Croydon and London. The financial viability of London as the commercial capital of the world has to be supported, and such projects will assist in maintaining the status of London, and Croydon as a part of London.
Those of us who pass through Croydon, or indeed Beckenham, know how much traffic congestion there is. If I have one beef about Government transport policy, it is the transport infrastructure black hole that exists in south London. I have approached my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London more than once about that. I have to accept that steps are being made to improve the infrastructure locally, and the access to Croydon and the proposed Coulsdon bypass are something for which the Government can take credit.

Mr. Merchant: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks accurately about his constituency. He described an infrastructure black hole in south London. Is he aware that in my constituency, which measures three miles by two miles, there are 14 open and working British Rail stations? Does he call that a black hole?

Mr. Ottaway: I am sorry if I misled my hon. Friend. I was talking about road infrastructure. In my constituency there are 14 British Rail stations and we have excellent train links to the centre of London, which I shall mention later. However, no new roads are proposed for south London. Those of us who drive up the M23 from Gatwick, cross over the M25 and look at the stump of the old M23 will have to agree that it is a sorry sight. Sadly, if there was one blow that the Government struck against the borough of Croydon it was the abandonment of the M23 in 1979, for reasons that were valid at the time but did nothing to help access to Croydon, which is essential for its financial importance and interests. The proposed east-west link, which will complement the spokes that go in and out of London, will vastly improve access to Croydon.
I am impressed by three points. First, the proposal has wide support from the council, from the chambers of commerce and the vast number of corporate entities


affiliated to them, and from local trade associations. I accept that some people object to the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) will no doubt develop his objections in due course. However, the House of Lords has already listened to the various objectors and was not overwhelmed by their objections. In paragraph 10 of its findings it said that it did not find against the Bill on the basis of the objections, but made the useful comment that
the promoters seem to us to have demonstrated a sympathetic understanding of these petitioners' situation and a willingness to try to mitigate the effects of Tramlink on them.
That comment shows the effectiveness of petitioning, but it is not grounds to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Bennett: Did not the House of Lords Committee hint that the promoters should negotiate with the petitioners between the House of Lords stage and the Committee in this House? As I understand it, the promoters have made few concessions, and hardly any of the petitions have been withdrawn.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the next sentence in the summary. I confess that I am not privy to negotiations between the promoters and the objectors, but I understand that some steps have been taken and I accept that the House of Lords has recommended that an effort be made to reach a consensus.
Secondly, I am impressed by the relatively small number of properties affected by the proposals. I understand that only 25 houses are affected, which for a rail link 18 miles long is a relatively small number.

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend says that few houses are affected. Will he explain what he means? Does he mean affected to such a degree that they need to be purchased, or is his description broader?

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend comes to my next point. I meant that 25 houses will have to be purchased. There is a wider degree of blight, as is inevitable with such a proposal. The third point that impresses me, however, is that the promoters have undertaken that where blight notices have been served they will deal with them sympathetically and with minimum delay. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, who I know is most concerned about possible delays as a result of blight, will take note of that. Those three proposals remove many subjects of concern to me and enable me to support the Bill.
I still have four concerns, however, which I shall briefly mention. The first is that, frankly, there is still a lot of iffiness about the funding of the proposal. Understandably, there is no Government commitment at this point, but the promoters of the scheme will not start unless they are convinced that it will be financially viable. As a result, there is a higher standard of assessment of the risk. That is why private loans do not feature in the public sector borrowing requirement. Such loans tend to be more tightly controlled than Government loans and are therefore less risky.
That argument is at the heart of the privatisation debate. Private organisations tend to make a more detailed analysis of the financial risks. I hope that we can have greater clarity about how much public money may he forthcoming and how much might be needed to remove many of the concerns being expressed about funding.
On funding, one point has not been properly aired. Property that is enhanced by the proximity of the line will increase in value, and the beneficiaries might like to chip in towards the line's construction costs. That is not without precedent. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) smiles. He knows much more about local government than I do, but a precedent was established when the developers of Canary wharf, which will benefit from the construction of the Jubilee line, undertook to chip in towards the cost of that line.
The borough council owns some property near the tramlink route, but lacks the powers to sell it at the enhanced value and apply the proceeds to the scheme. I hope that in due course the Government will consider what powers might be needed to facilitate the sale, because that money should be readily available.

Sir Paul Beresford: Will my hon. Friend welcome the opportunity to visit the residents association of Lynden Hyrst, for example, where the residents feel that when they step on to the pavement the tramlink will virtually run across their toenails? Perhaps he would like to ask them how they feel about the benefit, and whether they would care to donate towards the scheme.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend's argument is valid, but it has nothing to do with my argument. If property is financially enhanced by the proximity of the line, its owners might like to chip in towards the cost of the scheme. Of course there are objectors. I have dealt with the objectors who are affected. The line is not going through my constituency, and none of my constituents objects to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central has constituents who object. No doubt he will deal with the matter in his skilful way.
My second concern is the disruption that might take place during construction of the scheme. I understand that in the city of Sheffield, as a result of traffic congestion, retailing fell by about 30 per cent. during the construction of the light railway. There is a pattern to shoppers' habits. If they know that they are likely to run into traffic jams in a certain area, they do not go there, and local retail trade tends to drop.
My third concern is the British content of the proposed scheme. I appreciate the promoters' efforts, but it must be accepted that two out of three promoters in the group are not British. What is the matter with the British? It is not much of a compliment to British industry if we have to rely on foreign input to build a tramlink in the middle of Croydon.
Hon. Members who have attended Transport Question Time, or, indeed, Prime Minister's Question Time, will have heard the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) banging on about subsidies that might be given to Asea Brown Boveri, which is based in his constituency. I happened to be driving past ABB in Derby the other day and I thought that I would look in and see how it was getting on. It certainly does not need help from the Government to get off the ground. I was impressed to hear that it recently won the contract to supply all the tram rolling stock in Strasbourg, of all places, the heart of the European Community and the home of the European Parliament.
Why cannot ABB try to win the contract in Croydon so that we could have a genuine British element in the


scheme? I hope that there will be a fair chance for British bids to be fully appreciated. Of course we need a fair competitive basis for tendering.
My fourth concern is the possible spur off the proposed tramlink to Purley. I hope that, during analysis of the scheme, such a possibility will not be ruled out. Trams used to go to Purley, and that could happen again. My initial soundings reveal that there is no overwhelming local enthusiasm one way or the other for such an idea, but it should be discussed. Indeed, I approached the Purley and Woodcote residents association on that point. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will be pleased to hear that the association says that it already has reasonable bus and rail links from Purley to Croydon. However, trains from Purley to Croydon do not operate so regularly as trams would.
The scheme is imaginative, it has been well thought out, it will do much to ease traffic congestion in the Croydon area, it will add to Croydon's prosperity, and it has my full support.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On behalf of the Labour party, I also welcome the Bill. Its concept of rapid, modern transport, which we have envisaged in our manifestos in recent general elections—circumstances have frustrated us in developing such themes—is greatly welcomed. The innovation and pioneering concept of the Bill's promoters should be recognised.
For a country the size of ours, very few modern transport projects have been promoted by any town or city since the second world war. Reference has been made to Manchester, and there is obviously docklands and Tyne and Wear, but there have not been many initiatives by local authorities, transport undertakings or, for that matter, Governments of either colour to modernise our transport system. This is a new and welcome departure, particularly as the scheme is in Greater London.
The immediate beneficiaries will be people who live in and near Elmers End, Beckenham, New Addington, Wimbledon, and along the routes linking those areas with the strategic shopping and commercial centre of Croydon. However, other residential areas and parts of south London will also benefit from the project. The link to Wimbledon will enable people who live along the Network SouthEast line serving Kingston and Sunbury to have much greater access to the eastern side- of the Greater London region south of the Thames, but to avoid the necessity of going to Clapham junction.
That theme can be developed further if one considers that people from Guildford travelling via Surbiton to Wimbledon will have access to Beckenham and Croydon while avoiding congested Clapham junction. They will have less travelling time. To complete the picture, I refer also to people who reside in Hampton Court or along the Chessington-Tolworth-Malden Manor line. There will be a great travel benefit to those people, too, if the line is linked with Wimbledon.
It has already been said that the project has all-party support in Croydon. As far as one can ascertain, there is demonstrable support for the project among the people of Croydon. That is very important, notwithstanding the representations of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr.

Merchant). The councils of the London borough of Merton and the London borough of Bromley wish the Bill well, at least in principle.
The Bill is only the first chapter in the project. If the project is to succeed and be constructed and, more important, be realised operationally, there is much to be done. Probably the most important aspect is the need for reassurance on funding of the project. We look to the Minister to give an idea of the extent to which, in terms of money and spirit, the Government will back the project. It is certainly a large project. We are talking about £140 million at a time of recession and commercial uncertainty. Therefore, we need significant backing and enthusiasm from the Department of Transport.
Many people who support the project are looking for reassurances either from the promoters or from the Department of Transport that it will be part of an integrated network. Implicit in that is the fact that tramlink must have a system of through ticketing with buses, Network SouthEast and, I hope, the London underground.
In a debate which, to a large extent, will be bipartisan, I hesitate to mention travelcard, but it is important that the Opposition should again remind the Minister for Transport in London that he and his Department have failed to give guarantees about the future of travelcard for existing public transport networks in London. That is bad and it is causing great disquiet. As we try to develop new systems of public transport in Greater London, the need for low-cost transferable ticketing throughout the various modes of transport in Greater London is underlined yet again. We should like a guarantee that travelcard will be not only used on existing transport networks but be extended to the Croydon tramlink.
It is inevitable that, in preparing for today's debate, hon. Members studied the report of the debate in another place. I was concerned to note that the principal sponsor, Baroness Gardner of Parkes, hinted that there might be a need for premium pricing to fund what is demonstrably an expensive project. That would be more than disappointing and would go against the spirit of promoting a modern, swift and cheap new form of public transport within Greater London. I hope that the sponsors and the Department bear that in mind during the Bill's parliamentary stages.
From my reading of the debate in another place, it appears that there were those who expressed an over-confident opinion about the funding for and the viability of the project. Although I wish it well and believe that it could and should be funded, it is somewhat shortsighted for their Lordships to take the view that the scheme will be largely financed by private capital and therefore
subject to the most intense expert scrutiny by those putting up the money.
There needs to be an undertaking from the Government about funding of construction and an undertaking that once the project is operational it will not be allowed to go bust, in any circumstances. That might appear to be an extreme scenario, but throughout the 20th century many public transport projects have subsequently been found not to be financially viable in strict commercial terms.
Once the project is completed, Governments of whatever colour must ensure that it survives. By then, where people live and work and much commercial activity will be based on the existence of that public transport


system. Therefore, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, that commits all future Governments to being the ultimate guarantor—

Mr. Bennett: We want a guarantee not just that the project will survive, but that it will survive in its entirety. With any privately funded scheme, the concern is always that those putting up the money might say, "We have looked at the economics and part A is all right, but we are not going to put up the money for the other parts." If people are to lose open spaces and suffer other disadvantages, it is important that in return they get the whole scheme, with all the advantages, not just part of it. That is especially true in areas such as New Addington.

Mr. Mackinlay: I accept my hon. Friend's point, which he puts more ably than me, that Parliament will be making a decision that morally binds future Governments to maintaining the project once it is constructed.

Sir Paul Beresford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the crux of the scheme is private funding and that that will involve bidding? To give any guarantee along the lines that he suggested would undermine the likelihood of realistic bidding from the private sector.

Mr. Mackinlay: I accept that the concept of the Bill is that the project should be commercially viable and that there will be bidders and franchises. During our debates on the Railways Bill, the Government stressed that entrepreneurs, companies and consortiums were prepared to fund transport systems and make a stab at operating them. The jury is still out on that. The hon. Gentleman buttressed the argument for privatisation by supporting the Bill in the Lobby. Therefore, I am surprised that he should question that principle in respect of the Croydon Tramlink Bill.

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman is talking about two different cases. The British Rail proposal involves negative bidding. The rail system exists and we want to keep it running. The Croydon Tramlink Bill is quite different. We are talking about the construction and running of a system. Because that has not started, any Government guarantee on finance would undercut the sharpness of the bidding from the private sector.

Mr. Mackinlay: I was not inviting the Government to issue a blank cheque or give a commitment that, as from this evening, they will underwrite the project. It would be naive of me to expect that from this Government. If there were a Labour Government, they, too, would hesitate to write a blank cheque. Nevertheless, if the Bill receives Royal Assent and some consortium constructs and subsequently runs this exciting project, but 20 years down the road it fails, the party that is in government must not allow the tramlines to be pulled up. That would be foolhardy. That is why we are at such an important stage; it sets the agenda not only for this project but for future projects.

Mr. Congdon: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I urge him not to go too far down that track —if he will excuse the pun—because one of the important parts of the project is to put the bulk of the risk in the private sector. The private sector must be under no illusion in its bidding. It must rigorously go through, as it has, the estimates of demand, usage and fares, in the knowledge that it will not be bailed out in 12 months if it gets it wrong;

to do so would he a misuse of public funds. Nevertheless, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that in the very long run it would be disappointing, to say the least, if we had the infrastructure but it was not used for trams. We need to strike a balance between ensuring that the risk is firmly in the private sector and avoiding a difficult problem 20 years ahead.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am content to say, "Hear, hear" to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. There is not a blade of grass between us on this point. He has expressed himself in the same spirit in which the Labour party approaches the project and with some confidence and hope that private finance can be found.
Like a number of hon. Members, I have some knowledge of and association with Croydon. I stood in Croydon, Central as a Labour candidate in the 1983 general election and, subsequently, in a much wider sphere as a European parliamentary candidate in 1984. l have some identification with and appreciation of not only the territory but some of the personalities involved—both those promoting the Bill and, in one or two cases, those petitioning against it. I am aware of the beautiful open spaces along the proposed route. I urge the Bill's promoters to remember that many of the points raised by petitioners are legitimate. An urgent attempt should be made to assuage their anxieties. Meeting some of those points would not be fatal to the project.
I want to mention a few of the points made by petitioners. In the other place, Lord Lytton argued that, before Royal Assent, there should be a scheme in place to ensure that blighted properties are bought, if the owners so request, with the utmost expedition. I hope that such purchases will not be confined to the 25 properties to which reference has been made. I hope that common sense and good will will prevail in respect of other properties that may suffer some degree of blight, or where personal circumstances—particularly affecting elderly or retired occupants—ought to be taken into account.
Many petitioners are not yet confident—although I believe that their concerns may be overcome—about the proposed design. The scheme should be sensitive to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, particularly where the link goes through open areas such as Lloyd park. Also, the rail cars should take into account the needs of the infirm and semi-ambulant. Wherever possible, the line of route should segregate the trams from cars and lorries, if not from other forms of public transport.
Mention was made of the need to attempt to reinstate high-value land and to replace land that is lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made the valid point—this is a flaw in the Bill —that an assumption is made that the promoters cannot or will not find land to compensate for that used by the tramlink. Parliament should send a signal that, notwithstanding Croydon council's extremely good record of providing land on its own initiative, an effort should be made to replace land used for the route. One cannot be satisfied at this stage that that principle has been taken on board by the promoters.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), replying to an intervention, argued that a contribution could be made by those who will benefit from the line of route. I am not opposed to that principle, but inevitably there are people who have a rapacious appetite for commercially exploiting new public projects. There is


anxiety in Croydon that Sainsbury would like to develop 36 acres at the bottom of Gravel hill on the Kent Gate way. Croydon borough council, as the co-promoter, has made it abundantly clear that it is opposed to that land being developed by Sainsbury—but it will not be able to stop Sainsbury legitimately pursuing through the planning process and a public inquiry an opportunity to exploit land that abuts the tramlink.
Prospective developers and others will inevitably seek to offer to contribute to the project in return for some advantage to themselves. That is a commercially legitimate practice, but we should be on guard against attracting resources to fund the project in a way that compromises good planning principles.

Mr. Merchant: Is not the hon. Gentleman also concerned that, if and when the tramlink starts operating, there might be pressure—particularly from the operator of the New Addington line—to construct park-and-ride areas? Given that the line will run through two miles of countryside and will attract few passengers, except from New Addington, the operator might want to provide park-and-ride areas to make that line more viable.

Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point, about which I am not unsympathetic. In a number of areas, there will inevitably be a temptation to create park-and-ride facilities where none is currently planned. Equally, Croydon council is anxious not to eat further into open spaces or the green belt by making substantial and frequent provisions for park-and-ride. More thought must be given to providing a balance. The hon. Member for Beckenham suggests that New Addington will become one big car park, because that major junction will attract traffic from Biggin Hill and other areas adjoining Bromley.
There would also be extensive opportunities for undesirable parking in the Lloyd park area, in a number of streets off Coombe road. However, that is not an argument for frustrating the passage of the Bill tonight, but the Bill's promoters must give greater consideration to this point of great anxiety among the petitioners.

Mr. Ottaway: There are two aspects to be considered. The first is the Canary Wharf principle, whereby private developers that enjoy enhanced value could, as a condition of relevant planning permission, chip into the construction cost. I take the point about safety, but that could be a condition of planning permission. That concept is not unknown. Secondly, I understand that one or two derelict acres in the centre of Croydon, next to a railway line, belong to the local authority. That land will have enhanced value, but the borough does not have the power to sell it and plough the proceeds into the scheme. Perhaps the Government could address that matter.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am sure that the Minister and the promoters have taken note of that point. It is new to me, but it appears to justify further consideration.
Notwithstanding bus deregulation and privatisation, London Regional Transport should use its good offices to ensure that extensive Hoppa bus services feed the tram stops without causing unnecessary traffic congestion and parking problems.

Mr. Congdon: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about possible further encroachment on open space as a result of further planning permission being granted for a superstore or park-and-ride facilities. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Croydon council's urban development plan strengthens the safeguards in respect of the Kent Gate way? Although Sainsbury is fighting an inquiry, the company will be strongly resisted, as it should be.
There is a link between that and park-and-ride because other people take the view that the same land would make a wonderful park-and-ride site. I believe that it would be disastrous to use open space in that way, and I am pleased that the promoters take a similar view. They believe that the demand for the tramlink will be such that park-and-ride facilities would have only a small effect on the level of patronage. The promoters consider that the tramlink will be economically viable without park-and-ride facilities, and have not included them in the Bill for that reason. The promoters have no desire to see park-and-ride facilities provided.

Mr. Mackinlay: A number of petitioners consider that that point deserves more consideration; I agree, although I support the concept of the Bill. We do not suggest that there should be extensive park-and-ride facilities, for the reasons cited by the hon. Gentleman. I entirely agree with him about the Kent Gate way site: I would expect the London borough of Croydon to resist any applications to develop that land, just as I would expect Sainsbury to try —legitimately, from its selfish point of view—to obtain planning permission.
No doubt that will be sorted out later. The point is that the promoters do not seem to want to consider the parking that will be generated in New Addington, and in and around the Lloyd park area. More homework needs to be done.
The promoters' plans are very imaginative, but they will raise an eyebrow or two among those who are familiar with a very congested part of south London. It is proposed that much of Addiscombe road and the area immediately outside East Croydon station should be used almost exclusively for the tramlink; that will involve the redirection of traffic around Chepstow road, Barclay road and the vicinity of the Fairfield halls. Do the promoters really believe that—even given the widening of the area involved—there will be sufficient capacity to absorb the heavy traffic that must negotiate it? I feel that an alternative must be found.

Sir Paul Beresford: I understand that the current road widening is not related to the tramlink—so they say.

Mr. Mackinlay: So they say; but road widening is in progress. My point is that, whatever the motive and the funding for it, the promoters should reconsider the idea that the tramlink road should monopolise the area immediately outside East Croydon station.
We welcome the Bill in principle. It will be good for people living in the boroughs of Bromley, Croydon and Merton; it will also produce increasing benefits for those living and working in a much wider area of south London and north Surrey. We hope that it will have a good run in the House, and that those who examine it will bear in mind the need to explore new ways of providing mobility at low cost—in regard to both the workplace and recreation.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on his skilful and persuasive presentation. He helped me greatly: now I need not detain the House long in explaining the Government's position.
We see the advantages of the proposed tramlink. In its non-technical summary of the environmental statement, Halcrow Fox said that the link was being promoted because
present widespread traffic congestion at peak times in Croydon is predicted to increase by 15 to 20 per cent. between 1986 and 2001, affecting travel by bus and car and commerical operations and increasing problems of 'rat-running', noise, air pollution and other adverse environmental effects; scope for increasing capacity through new road building or widening existing roads is severely constrained and very unpopular with the public.
According to the summary, Croydon council's transport strategy suggests that public transport should play a greater role in meeting the predicted demand for movement; light rail provides an attractive alternative to road building, increasing capacity on key routes with minimum environmental impact, and offers a real choice to travellers as against the car or bus. The Government consider that to be an accurate summary of the scheme's advantages. It involves a 17·5 mile link—or 28 km, as I should say nowadays—centred on Croydon, with branches to Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington.
There is no doubt that traffic congestion is a serious issue in Croydon, and that communications should be improved. I do not think that many people would suggest that a massive road-building programme is the answer; certainly, I do not believe that there is any local enthusiasm for such a move—even from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), whose reservations will be appreciated by other hon. Members.
However, a light railway system has advantages. For instance, it involves minimal environmental intrusion, and is energy efficient. No harmful fumes are emitted, as they are from cars and other vehicles. Moreover, choice, is enhanced: passengers have a real alternative to the car or bus. The Government consider the tramlink scheme worth while, and accordingly support the Bill in principle.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East pointed out, this is essentially a private sector project. That is very much in accordance with the Government's policy of involving the skills of that sector, as well as its capital, to the maximum extent to allow the transport infrastructure to provide the best value for money for both taxpayers and, ultimately, users. My hon. Friend referred to the work of the project development group. I can confirm that the promoters are making good progress: they have already appointed a private sector project development group.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) pointed out that two of the companies involved were not British. They are Transdev, the French operator of transport systems, and AEG(UK). Although AEG is not a British company—it is building the rolling stock—AEG(UK) will provide the United Kingdom with substantial employment opportunities. Tarmac—a British company—is also involved in building the infrastructure for the line.
Those companies are funding the development work themselves: private capital is going into the project development group. The work is now well advanced. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill, the promoters expect to be able to invite private sector bids for the concession to build and operate the scheme early next year, including one from the project development group.
Let me make two points about the way in which the project development group will work in relation to eventual bidding for the scheme. I suspect, from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, that there may be a hint of misapprehension about the group's role. In wishing to ensure that the taxpayer's involvement was minimal at this stage, the promoters determined to use the device of a project development group funded by the private sector, with expertise drawn from the relevant sectors.
Those companies would, in effect, prepare a development brief which would then be the subject of tenders for the various aspects of the line—for its construction, for the construction of the rolling stock and for the operation of the line. At that point the project would be open for any company to bid, within EC rules. I should be disappointed if the only bid forthcoming was from the promoters.
Of course the promoters have become involved in the project, because they believe that it has a future, and no doubt they will want to tender for the work. I applaud their initiative in doing what they have done to provide mechanisms in the process for considering tenders that will ensure that members of the project development group do not enjoy an unreasonable advantage—that would be improper—but that, none the less, if the promoters do not win the contract, the costs that they have borne so far will be passed on to the successful bidders.
The members of the project development group are applying their skills to working the scheme up, and no doubt they look forward to bidding for the tender in open competition in due course. However, there is no guarantee whatever that they will be successful. If my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is keen that British companies should be involved in tendering for the project, as he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade he should use his extensive contacts to encourage as many British companies as possible to bid for the contract and beat off the foreign competition. The Government applaud and welcome the approach that the promoters have adopted towards the project development group. We think that that is the right way to proceed.
Grants have been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East said that an element of grant might be sought to support the project. I am sure that he and the promoters, and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), will understand the grant position well. The Government will consider any application for grant on its merits by examining the public benefits that will be secured by the scheme—those are conventionally known as the non-user benefits—and relating them to the amount of grant sought. I must not disguise the fact that we shall have to do that against the background of competing schemes and the overall availability of funds. The scheme is attractive, but it would be wrong of me to give guarantees about any level of grant that may be forthcoming in due course.
It is a great pleasure to see the hon. Member for Thurrock in his place. He is the Labour mascot for the other 15 Members of Parliament who represent Essex in the Tory interest. He is much loved by all of us and, I hate to say, will be greatly missed. However, if he will forgive me, I must tell him that I took exception to his accusation —I believe that I noted it accurately—that I had failed to give guarantees on travelcard.

Mr. Mackinlay: indicated assent.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman nods in assent. I do not know what I am supposed to say that would reassure him. He is a fairly literate chap, so I need not descend to monosyllables to make my point.
I was recently reported in the Evening Standard as having offered my resignation if travelcard were not to survive. As it happens, I had not done that, but when the next journalist rang to ask me whether it was true I thought that I had better say yes, because otherwise he might say that I was trying to climb down from the commitment.
Since then, I have repeatedly pointed out, and I welcome the opportunity to do so in the House, that anyone who understands how public transport operates in the capital city recognises that travelcard is not an option, but is essential. It is the method by which millions of people in this city make their journeys. If one did not preserve and develop the advantages of multimodal travel such as the scheme now offers, one would not be doing the residents of this great city a service.
Were it not for the appalling precedent, I would have been tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman to read my lips, but remembering when that expression was previously used, I thought that it might be ill advised. None the less, I tell the hon. Gentleman in the clearest possible terms that the travelcard is in no danger. It is safe in my hands—there I go again, with yet another inappropriate reference. I hope that I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that he should not be disturbed.
Indeed, I fear that my normally generous sense of humour might wane if he were to continue along that line, because I do not believe that he is the kind of chap who would like to mislead millions of people in this city and leave them in doubt about the continued availability of the most popular device for getting around it.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Norris: Before I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock, may I give way to my good friend the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)?

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my good friend the Minister for giving way to me. May I ask him two questions?- First, will the travelcard apply to tramlink? Secondly, although I appreciate that he is saying that he strongly favours keeping the travelcard, could that not mean a card completely different from the present travelcard? People can use the existing card all day to make as many journeys as they like, but could not the travelcard that the Minister means be one that runs out if someone makes too many journeys? Would that not be a completely different travelcard?

Mr. Norris: O, ye of little faith. It is important to relate travelcard to the Bill, and I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that everyone involved in the development of the scheme recognises that it should be part of the travelcard system, especially as about 70 per cent. of the people who will use tramlink will move on to other modes of travel.

Mr. Bennett: Where does it say that in the Bill?

Mr. Norris: It is not appropriate for that to be in the Bill, any more than it appears specifically in, for example, the Railways Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State will give the franchising director powers to require potential franchisees to be members of travelcard. I have made it plain that, with the leave of the House, I intend to introduce similar clauses in forthcoming legislation on the deregulation of buses in London. However, I must tell the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Leyton that negotiating the precise terms of entry into travelcard for Croydon tramlink is a matter for the promoters, for LT and for the other members of travelcard.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Norris: Before I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock, I shall answer the second question asked by the hon. Member for Leyton by saying that his fears are unfounded. The card will continue in the form that he and I—and millions of people in this city—recognise. No doubt the system will develop. For example, I believe that stored value ticketing, which will enable us to use the same facilities for transport as the phonecard currently provides for telephoning, is likely to be widely taken up.
Passengers will enjoy having a simple ticket, like the phonecard, which, if they need to get on the tube or the bus, will obviate the need for change so that they can use the system more easily. There is a great deal of merit in that. When one is totally convinced of the importance of the device in the public transport system, one is beyond the political stage of bantering about whether or not travelcard will survive. That parrot is well and truly dead.

Mr. Mackinlay: I welcome the Minister's reiteration that travelcard is safe: he has, in fairness, spelt that out in explicit terms this evening. Anyone reading the Official Report tomorrow morning who believed his utterances and his point to me in their entirety would also believe St. Paul who said within the walls of Damascus, "Quite honestly, I have always been preaching Christianity".
There was a stage when the Minister did wobble, to say the least, on the future of travelcard. The political reality —a London borough election next year—no doubt concentrated his mind. I welcome what he has said and if we can put the matter to rest, so be it, but it was important that we should have raised it tonight both in terms of the capacity of people to have the choice of ticketing throughout Greater London, through various modes of transport, and specifically in relation to the new, exciting tramlink. I hope that the Government and their successor will ensure that they are locked into a travelcard system as we presently know it.

Mr. Norris: I am sorry at the hint of sadness in the hon. Gentleman's voice that was implied by his reluctant acceptance that we might actually mean what we say. Of course, I understand that his deep knowledge of scripture


brought to mind the concept of Pauline conversion, but neither that nor the London borough elections figured in my mind.
It is perfectly sensible, and it is important in the context of the Croydon tramlink, that the overwhelming view of operators, private and currently public, is that there is no need for legislative underpinning of a travelcard scheme because they believe that it offers huge advantages. They think that using a travelcard enables bus operators to get people on board much more quickly than currently. However, such an option to enter travelcard would not satisfy either hon. Members on either side of the House or myself. That is why I made it clear and quite explicit that travelcard will continue.
I sense that I would stray from the principal purposes of our proceedings tonight were I to digress further on the subject of travelcard and I shall not do so, but it is important. Of course, if 70 per cent. of the users of the Croydon tramlink transfer to other modes of travel, they will almost certainly want to do so with a travelcard. Therefore, the House should be aware that negotiations are foreseen by which Croydon tramlink would be part of the system. How revenue is apportioned is a complex calculation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, so I shall not go into it further.
The hon. Member for Thurrock said that he had been a prospective Member for Parliament for Croydon, although in my experience he had been a prospective Member for Parliament for most constituences before his happy arrival in the charming spot that he represents in God's own county. He asked for a guarantee that the scheme would not go bust. That was a breathtaking request, because it illustrates a profound ignorance of the way in which any market system works.
It certainly points me to the conclusion that one ought to draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the definition of the word "risk". The concept of transferring the risk in the project to the private sector is that it will be the job of the private sector to make sure that it is a profitable railway that offers a standard of service which customers appreciate and therefore continue their patronage of the railway. However, I cannot disguise from the House the accuracy of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-East, the sponsor of the Bill, when he said that the essence of risk was precisely that there could be circumstances in which the owners of the project might have to seek alternative financing for it and that might result in the diminution of their own equity or even in its extinguishment.
The substantive point about which the House was concerned was whether the promoters could bring forward the Bill and then simply build parts of the tramlink. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, among others. As the House knows, I am not the sponsor of the Bill; my hon. Friend has done that job very ably in the House tonight. I merely remind the House that the Committee will no doubt wish to look at the guarantee that the whole project will be built. It will be a matter for the Committee. Its members are as yet unnamed and I can therefore say with some assurance that I know they will treat that matter with assiduity.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister is aware ghat the Department normally gives evidence to the Committee

on a Bill such as this. Will he confirm that, in his evidence, he will be asking for guarantees that the whole scheme is built, not just the more profitable bits of it?

Mr. Norris: I fear that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He has been in the House long enough to know why. It is not appropriate for the Department to say that; it is for the Committee to determine whether it is appropriate and, if it is, to obtain it from the promoters of the Bill.
The Department will give evidence as to the desirability of the scheme, and the transport implications of the scheme; and, as I have told the House, the Department will be indicating that it favours the scheme.
The Bill has already passed its Second Reading and opposed Committee stages in the other place. The Committee there decided, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, that the promoters had made out a case for the Bill to proceed and it was very complimentary about the scheme. There remain those who object to the scheme on various grounds and to various degrees—including, as I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham.

Mr. Merchant: I paused for a moment before intervening because I thought that my hon. Friend might be coming to a point which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised earlier and which still presents quite a serious problem. What happens if the budget goes ahead and the railway is built? Historically, railways have often gone bankrupt, sometimes quite soon after they are built. Given that there is a good deal of injury to the people affected by the route being built, what happens if they find themselves with a new railway that has worked for two years and then cannot sustain itself?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend will understand that I am not speaking as the sponsor of the Bill but merely offering advice which I hope will be of help to him and his constituents.
Let me first explain that there will be no question but that compensation which is due to any person who is entitled to such compensation under the terms of the Bill, and in light of the scheme, will be paid. If the operators of the system become insolvent, no doubt they will have to seek an arrangement with their creditors, and if an arrangement ultimately results in their bankruptcy or liquidation, the responsibility for operating the railway will pass to another. As it will pass at a price which reflects the then partronage and ability to render the railway profitable, it will also ensure its rapid transition and its continuence.
My hon. Friend is well aware that there are many great buildings in London built by developers who did not survive. I remember reading an article in The Times by Simon Jenkins that pointed out that Cubitt and Nash, not to mention Reichmann, had all gone bust while building the greatest buildings in London. It may be a fate that will perennially beset developers with imagination. The last thing that happened was that the local council occupied the building or knocked it down. The facility is there and it will continue.
The merits of the scheme embodied in the Bill are such that I can invite the House to support it. The Government support it. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who says that if I say


so, that is good enough for him. I look forward to him joining me in the Lobby later if required, although I hope that the Bill will receive an unopposed Second Reading.
I point out to those hon. Members who have it in mind to oppose the Bill—not that I believe that such a thought would pass through the minds of hon. Members—that it is an enabling measure. It will facilitate the development of the scheme to the point at which, for example, the project development group is able to make an application for grant. The amount of grant required and the efficacy of the scheme that is produced will ultimately be the test of whether the scheme will proceed.
The Committee will ensure that the legitimate interests of those affected by the Bill are properly dealt with. I have no doubt that it will examine carefully the point raised by the hon. Members for Thurrock and for Denton and Reddish about the necessity for adequate compensation. Knowing the promoters well—as the hon. Gentleman and I do—I recognise that they are organisations of substance and are not in the business of short-changing those with legitimate claims for disturbance or other compensation.
Although it is proper for hon. Members to express their concerns about the Bill, it is proper for the Bill to receive a Second Reading tonight so that it can proceed on its way to what it can represent—a valuable piece of imaginative and creative infrastructure in one of the most important development centres in the country, Croydon. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Before I add my support to the Bill, I was amused to hear the Minister refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) as the Labour mascot in Essex. I see him more as a beacon and a forerunner. Indeed, I know that role in formerly Tory Croydon, so I sympathise with my colleague.
While I welcome the Minister's support, I advise him, albeit humbly, to renew his acquaintance with a dictionary of political quotations over the summer recess. As he recognised when he was reciting them, to support the travelcard with "read my lips" and "safe in our hands" falls short of what we require. For a moment, I thought that we would get some Neville Chamberlain—waving the travelcard, the Minister would proclaim, "a travelcard in our time". The people of Croydon are locking up their travelcards tonight as they wait to get into hospitals that are safe in the Government's hands.
I have started on entirely the wrong note, because I rose to confirm the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) that the Bill has bipartisan support and the unanimous support of the substantial Labour group and the majority Conservative group on the Croydon council. Councillors have given their support after assessing the environmental factor and other factors that have been discussed today. They care about their environment and do not lightly support the measure. There is a strong consensus in Croydon for the measure, but there are some legitimate concerns that we need to recognise.
I have been told that Croydon last saw trams in 1951. Historians can correct me if I have got that slightly wrong. I am pleased that trams—albeit different, more modern

and more energy-efficient ones—may soon be returning to Croydon as the first place in greater London for that to happen. That is an important factor.
I support the Bill for three major reasons: social, economic and environmental. I support it for social reasons because I am aware that the New Addington housing estate is isolated from the centre of Croydon in many respects. The estate has many strengths as well as many problems. In a sense, it is poor testimony to that phase of our housing and planning policy when such large estates were built.
Anything that we can do to enable the people in New Addington in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir. P. Beresford) to get better and faster access to the centre of Croydon, not least for employment purposes, will be an improvement. That is important because more than a third of the people of New Addington have no access to a car. As has been pointed out, there is no rail link for a substantial town of 25,000 people. In peak times, it takes a bus 45 minutes to get from Addington to the centre of Croydon.
Those are all important facts and powerful reasons for supporting a modern transport system, not least for the people of New Addington. It is certainly important for employment because Croydon, like other areas in the south, suffers from unemployment. According to official Department of Employment figures, 18·8 per cent. of the men in New Addington are unemployed. If we enable them to have better access to a wider employment market, that may make a helpful impression on that high unemployment figure. Therefore, I support the measure for social reasons.
Another social factor is the great diligence shown by the planners to make tramlink accessible to people with frailties or those who have difficulty gaining access to buses or trains. I am thinking of people with disabilities, especially those in wheelchairs, as well as people with heavy shopping or people pushing buggies. All those groups will welcome tramlink. The Bill is impressive in terms of the regard shown by the planners for ramps and ticket machines that will be accessible to people with disabilities. It will be possible for people to take their wheelchairs on to tramlink easily and information will be provided in braille for blind people or those with poor sight. I am impressed by the social policy aspect of the measure.
Like many business people and others in Croydon, I believe that the measure will have a positive impact on the economic health of Croydon. As has been said, it has been welcomed by the Croydon chamber of commerce. It improves, by definition, the east-west transport links. Therefore, its economic impact along the route could, broadly speaking, be beneficial. It also relates to a more national concern that was well articulated in 1989 by the Confederation of British Industry in a report on transport.
The CBI said, among other things, that the nation's transport infrastructure was hopelessly inadequate, that congestion had enormous economic costs and estimated them at £15 billion a year or in excess of £10 a week for every household—the costs of poor transport on our economy and our business often not calculated, often hidden. It went on to say:
Public transport facilities should be greatly improved.
Within our local economy of Croydon and other economies, tramlink helps to move things in the right direction.
We have rightly heard a lot about the environmental impact of the measure and clearly there are still doubts which have been articulated and which need further thought, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East is the first to recognise. We are still at the beginning of this story and there is time to improve on these matters. We need to make a balanced assessment and calculate both the potential negative impact on the environment and the beneficial impacts. We have heard about the former.. but not the latter.
Obviously, there are negative impacts. It may seem as though only a few houses will be affected, but if we lived in one of them, we would not want the railroad running through the middle of it. I will not break into song, although I remember one of that title. There may be only a few houses, but to those affected it is their house and it is important. I recognise that a larger number of houses will suffer an adverse environmental impact.
We must be greatly concerned about the impact on open spaces and the ancient woodland along the route. I am worried about these matters. An hon. Friend, who told me earlier that he had to leave the Chamber for a meeting, made some important points about open spaces. I do not know the details, but if we can persuade London Transport not to sell some open land for development, but to keep it as open space, perhaps we can make some environmental gain. I would be worried if we lost too many trees.
Let us see whether, through planting a wide variety of trees, we may come out of the scheme with more rather than fewer trees. I shall certainly urge the planners, as will my colleagues on the other side of the House who represent Croydon, to talk to the Ramblers Association and other organisations about these matters. I am bound to say that I am impressed by the way in which the planners, together with Labour and Conservative councillors, have loked at many of these things sensitively and in detail to develop a route that does the least environmental harm.
We have heard less about different types of environmental gains. We all know that in congested city areas, not least areas such as Croydon, the great enemy is the motor car. Many of us drive motor cars, so we cannot afford to be sanctimonious about this. We need to develop public transport systems with the right mix of public and private funding, which enable people often to opt for public transport rather than take the car.
The other day I looked at the 1991 census figures for Croydon and noticed that in part of the borough—indeed, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—some 10 per cent. of households now have three or more cars. We do not need to be very clever or great experts on conservation and the environment to know that we cannot go on buying more and more cars and using them more and more often. If, as a result of schemes such as Croydon tramlink, more of us are persuaded to use public transport rather than our own cars, environmental and energy gains become substantial.
I have been looking at figures and I am told that the car and motor vehicles more generally generate some 45 per cent. of the main greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide—and up to half the man-made emissions of nitrogen oxide. Those emissions contribute to acid rain. If one assesses the environmental impact as one should and develops an environmental impact statement for Croydon tramlink, there are items on both sides of the balance sheet, not just

one. My judgment is that the environmental gains of the scheme outweigh the disadvantages. In Committee and through more consultation, we can look at those questions in more detail than perhaps we have so far.

Mr. Merchant: I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument on pollution, and so on, but does he accept that tramlink would not be helpful in reducing pollution emissions from motor cars because the promoters say that only 10 per cent. of people who travel on tramlink will be taken from motor cars?

Mr. Wicks: It depends whether one regards that 10 per cent. as a significant or a small proportion. In the battle against the motor car and people's obsession with it, a 10 per cent. gain is important. It remains to be seen whether the atmosphere in the centre of Croydon will be improved if we can couple the tramlink with greater pedestrianisation and more curbs on the use of private cars. As in many other towns and cities, atmospheric pollution in Croydon is above EC guidelines and we should be concerned about that. I would welcome a 10 per cent. impact.
Concerns have been expressed by many groups and I want to meet those groups and hear more about their concerns. I wish to remain as open-minded as I can on those matters. Nevertheless, I am struck by the fact that the Association of Croydon Conservation Societies supports the measure in principle. I suppose that it welcomes its environmental impact.
For those three reasons—social, economic and environmental—I support the Bill. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South made a good point when he talked of the need to enable and encourage British companies to contribute fully to the scheme. As one of his humble constituents, I like to agree with him, and I agree with him on that matter—[Interruption.] I never tell people how I vote.
Asea Brown Boveri has already been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has in his constituency the works that are currently building trams. ABB is now building trams for Strasbourg, which is another important European city, alongside Croydon. It is building something called a "supertram". My hon. Friend has invited me to York to look at those trams—

Mr. Ottaway: The trams are being built in Derby. I know, because I went there the other day.

Mr. Wicks: I hope to go to York soon and have a more fruitful discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for York about the building of the trams. Things can happen in two places at almost the same time. My hon. Friend the Member for York is clear about where some of the trams are being built. If we can encourage British firms to put in good bids, gains will be made all round.
I am glad that the first trams in London for 40 years or more will be introduced before too long, with support from both sides of the House, in London's largest borough. In terms of population, Croydon would count as England's tenth city. I am bipartisan in regarding it as becoming a modern European town. It is already a major centre of business and retailing, but it has a council and community who care deeply about their environment and they support the measure for environmental as well as social and economic reasons.
I support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East. The tramlink is good for Croydon and is on the right lines.

Sir Paul Beresford: It was intriguing to listen to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), who justified much of his position on this evening's debate on rambling. He said that he had been rambling through my constituency.
I entirely agree with many of the points that have been made, particularly those about New Addington. I welcome the prospect of a decent transport system for people in that area. I shall ignore the fact that the hon. Gentleman has pre-empted great portions of my speech while rambling across my constituency and the parks.
Considerable credit must be, and has been, given to Croydon council. It unanimously supported the Bill, and promoted and pushed it forward in conjuction with London Transport.
Many comments have been made about the positive aspects of tramlink—the light rail idea—and bringing together so many different councils, including Croydon, Merton, Sutton and Bromley, as well as London Transport and British Transport. That shows the difficulty which the council, as promoter, must have had when bringing together the different organisations involved in the project.
The scheme is essentially to be constructed and funded by the private sector. The fact that it is anticipated that it will be self-financing when it is up and running also highlights the extraordinary ability of the promoters in pushing the scheme forward.
The scheme's benefits have been mentioned. It will be a quiet, low-pollution service linking central Croydon with Wimbledon, New Addington and Beckenham—I suspect that there may be some dispute about that later. It will link trams, trains, buses. Many of the stations involved have been mentioned, including Wimbledon, West Croydon, East Croydon, Elmers End, Beckenham Junction, Mitcham Junction and Birkbeck. The potential benefits have been extensively promoted this evening.
I wish that, over the years, the same approach had been taken by the council and the Department of Transport to the M25 link with Croydon—but that issue related to earlier events today.
Much credit must be given to the promoters for the care and thought given to assisting passengers, particularly for shoppers and those using wheelchairs, prams and trollies, through the use of canopies over the bus stops and train stations, as well as modern technological devices such as automated ticket machines and information displays and television cameras. Those issues were mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West.
It is worth quoting from a fact sheet produced by the tramlink team in August 1992, which states:
Whilst tramlink has been promoted by London Transport and the London borough of Croydon, it is intended that the scheme will be financed, constructed, and operated, by the private sector".
That is an extremely commendable and bold statement, which greatly enhanced my attitude towards tramlink.
Unfortunately, the very next sentence in the statement states:

A public sector contribution may be required to reflect the benefits to other road users of easing congestion".
That may cause some Conservative Members difficulties. Such a scheme, which anticipates considerable public benefit, must strongly tempt my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to slip into the scheme a pump-priming sum. However, such a proposal presupposes that, despite all the demands on the limited budget for future years, the funds will be available. It also presupposes that it would be only a small pump-priming fund.
The prospect of a tramlink in an urban district such as Croydon presents considerable difficulties for many people along the route, particularly where the route is new. Many residents live along the route that is already under way between Wimbledon and Croydon. Much of the route which runs through to New Addington is new. It has raised many fears with residents which may or may not turn out to be justified.
Certainly the residents' fears have been all too real for them since the initial planning of the development. The fears have been greatest among those who wish to sell their houses and move. The scheme will affect many of those people—certainly in their own minds, and those of the estate agents. Their properties will fall outside the normal remit of compensation. I know that purchase of the properties would be prompt, but many of the residents who qualify for compensation do not wish to have their properties purchased, but wish to remain.
I wonder why such a long and tedious technique—the use of the private Bill procedure to take the Bill through both Houses—was chosen. An alternative, which was available, has been mentioned. Given the openness and relative speed offered by the alternative, I was a little surprised that the private Bill procedure was chosen. There has been considerable consultation, and some support, but there has been also considerable vocal and written opposition. I have received one letter in favour of tramlink, but I have received hundreds—not all of which were organised—against the scheme. People are worried.
Nevertheless, the hundreds who wrote opposing the scheme will be probably portrayed as few compared with the numbers of people who will be served by the tramlink and who live further from the area of development.
I add my congratulations to the promoters. Many of the arguments in petitions have been met. Variations in the routes have been considered—perhaps the rambling of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) will be allowed to continue freely through my constituency.
Many points, even if they have not been met, have been carefully looked at and assessed, but a few things need elaboration, because we have still to come to the Committee on the subject.
Mention was made earlier of the Park Hill area. Many residents of Park Hill—with considerable justification—feel anger at the widening of Barclay road, Fairfield road and Chepstow road, and the bulldozing of trees that that has made necessary. I accept that the council has tried to replace the trees, but the claim that the project was needed but was not related to tramlink stretches the credibility somewhat.
The tram will run adjacent to properties in Addiscombe road and through the frontage of Lloyd park. There is justifiable concern in those areas. Many protestors anticipate environmental damage, and I have mentioned that the Lynden Hyrst residents association has been


particularly vocal. I will use a slight exaggeration, but the residents feel that their toenails are trimmed by the scheme when they step out of their properties on to the pavement.
Many estate agents in the area believe that the development has reduced the value of local properties, but that will be overridden when the tramlink is running. I suspect that the estate agents will then use a reverse process and say that a property is worth more because the tramlink service is there, but until that day, there will be a considerable blight.
Going a little further, the tramlink service will progress down Gravel hill. The majority of local residents will be relatively unaffected—they will be across a multi-lane highway from the service, and also above it—but it is worth mentioning one petitioner; a lady who purchased a property before the announcement of the plans.
Her property is situated at what is effectively the bottom of the hill, where it is proposed that the tramlink will cross the multi-lane highway using an extensive and complicated system of lights. One can see in the plans that drawings that relate to tramlink noticeably—one could say, cynically—skirt the boundary of her property in such a way as to remove from the tramlink scheme the obligation of purchasing the property.
The lady would prefer to stay in her home—she has bought and extended it—but she does not want to stay with the tramlink running across her toes at the front of her garden. If tramlink proceeds, she would prefer to have her property purchased with full compensation. She would then move and start again. I believe that the promoters are looking seriously at the situation, and I encourage that. The knowledge that some public utilities may need to be changed in that area may well mean that the lady's hopes will be met.
It needs to be mentioned that the route will have a negative effect on the residents of the New Addington section in my constituency. Mention has been made of the prospect of park-and ride problems, and those problems need to be faced. However, the residents of Parkway and Central parade who live adjacent to the proposed tramlink face the prospect of living cheek by jowl with the route. That is particularly so when the route has to deviate to go around the medical centre. During the run-up to building the link, the perceived blight for those people will be considerable, even though the road is narrow at that point.
I expect that the blight will be considerable even when the tramlink is built, because that area is the stopping point at which the tram will move up to a blind junction and reverse down in front of and close to the properties of several people. Worst of all, I suspect that the rules and regulations on compensation are such that those residents will receive no compensation. I hope that I am proven wrong.
It is right that this paving Bill should progress through the House. The details show that it proposes a 10.-year period during which commencement of building must be undertaken. At this stage, we face the prospect of a £140 million building programme, but it appears that there is a touch of guesstimate rather than estimate in that figure.
Many of us are aware that the full assessment of the costs of key factors such as the realignment of public utilities has yet to be completed. I suspect that the original estimate of those costs may prove to be on the low side.
We need to bear in mind the importance of Croydon to such utilities as British Telecom, Thames Water, electricity suppliers, gas suppliers, cable companies and so on. I

understand that building the tramlink will cause particular difficulties for British Telecom, because it has a key junction with key facilities at an important point. As I understand it, the effect of that has not yet been taken into account.
My personal view is that any funding beyond pump priming from national coffers would be wrong.

Mr. Merchant: My hon. Friend's point about British Telecom is a fair one. Is he aware that interference from electrical discharges would have an impact on British Telecom apparatus, and that large quantities of that apparatus would have to be moved? Does he agree that that charge should be levied on the promoters of the scheme?

Sir Paul Beresford: I understand that British Telecom will be a petitioner in Committee. It will probably be more appropriate to discuss points of such technical difficulty at that stage.
The promoters expect that the line will be self-sufficient once it is up and running. On that point, the most sceptical eyebrows have been raised. For example, the link between Wimbledon and West Croydon has been running for many years under the gentle hand of British Rail. The line is poorly utilised, and I understand that it is accepted as a loss maker. Anticipation of a marked improvement in use to such a degree that the viability of that line in revenue terms would be increased stretches credibility.
When one takes into account the fact that commuters may be required to pay a premium, especially at key peak times, one wonders about the potential viability of the line in the light of the competition that will definitely come from bus services as a result of deregulation and lower bus fares in real terms.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend concede that one of the problems of the West Croydon to Wimbledon link is that British Rail has ensured that the service runs only once every 45 minutes, which misses out much of the market? More significantly, it would be linked only between West Croydon and Wimbledon, whereas tramlink links not only West Croydon and Wimbledon, but Wimbledon right through to East Croydon and beyond. That link to East Croydon is especially critical because it links Victoria and further south.

Sir Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend for his points. The infrequency of the link could be related more to supply meeting demand, which, in that context, was not considered. I remain unconvinced that, apart from myself, the use of a line from Wimbledon straight through to New Addington would be of tremendous advantage to anyone. The attraction of using tramlink to travel from Wimbledon to Croydon and on to New Addington or Beckenham probably passes by most of the residents of Wimbledon and may continue to do so for some time, but I may be proved wrong.
There is the possibility that the Bill will be passed and left on the shelf for 10 years because the finances to build and run the scheme will not materialise. It worries me that, if that occurred, it would be difficult to remove the Bill from the statute book during that time. The plans will therefore blight the area for a further 10 years unless something is built into the Bill to allow Croydon council, perhaps, as one of the promoters, to withdraw it in the event that it proves not to be economically viable.


Nevertheless, I support the Bill, as it is a paving Bill, because the crunch decision time will be when the bids are made.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall try to be brief, as I know that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) wants to speak.
I am a supporter of trams in London, although they are more like light railways these days than the old trams. Trams are an alternative to road building, and that is to be welcomed. I went to Croydon to look at the proposals for the scheme yesterday and also meant to see those who object, but due to the usual muddle, for which I take responsibility, I did not see them and I apologise to them.
There are merits in the proposals, as my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said earlier. There would be big benefits in terms of creating employment, especially in the New Addington area, where 17 per cent. of the population of 25,000 are unemployed. The residents there are currently inadequately served, and under the scheme they would have the opportunity to get into central Croydon in 17 minutes, they would have access to part-time work in Purley, and they would have easy access to British Rail stations in central London. Those benefits should be taken into account.
Other advantages of an efficient public transport are the saving of travelling time, and a reduction in accidents and overall traffic congestion. However, I take on board the representations made by the objectors, that other traffic-calming measures would also be necessary if overall congestion is to be reduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made some good points about open space. One of my concerns was that the scheme would use the edge of woodlands, although it could be argued that it gives access to those woodlands. However, compensatory land and trees need to be provided, and the objections of the ramblers, for example, should be fully taken into account.
There should also be better compensation for those who are affected by blight. Such compensation relates not only to this scheme, but to many others where it is unfair that people on the edge of schemes do not receive compensation. The Department should look into improving the compensation schemes for people just outside the affected areas.
The trouble is that the schemes seem to be chosen at random—first docklands, now Croydon. Although they are worth while, there may be other areas that would benefit even more from similar projects. There is no co-ordinated Government approach to trams, and there have been no studies of where they might best be sited in London. There has been no commitment of public money, and local authorities have not been helped to encourage the private investment which the Government claim to want.
This is a serious criticism. The Government have not co-ordinated tram projects and light railways in London. There is plenty of scope for trams in east London; the docklands light railway could be extended to my part of the world—

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. The Manchester metro receives substantial Government support, as does the south Yorkshire supertram project. Indeed, the very purpose of section 56 is to provide grants for systems such as this. The hon. Gentleman's reference to east London reminds me of Barking, which has expressed an interest in a light rail project. We shall be interested to see what it comes up with.
The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that it would be quite wrong of the Department to set a national plan for light rail systems. Local communities should develop their own plans and then submit them to the Department. Such cases may be eligible for grant, and the Department considers each on its merits.

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful for that statement. I welcome the projects in Manchester and elsewhere. London lags behind the rest of the country. The Department has been a factor in that. Many local authorities wonder whether they would really find approval in the Department for schemes that may involve pump priming with public money.

Mr. Bennett: Would it not also be an advantage if rolling stock were interchangeable, and if encouragement were given to the buying of rolling stock made in Britain?

Mr. Cohen: Those are both good points, and they make the case for involving the Department and promoting trams throughout the country, particularly in London.
If mainly private money is involved, that is fine by me, but the gap will have to be filled with public funds. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) talked about a small element of pump priming, but for this scheme alone that is likely to amount to £45 million—probably good value for money, but hardly a small sum. I repeat that the Government should decide which areas should be given tram systems as a matter of priority, particularly in London. That is another argument for Department of Transport involvement.
There is some concern that fares may rise. I hope that they will he properly regulated, and that operators will not be given carte blanche to charge what they like. I also hope that pensioners will still be able to use their concessionary fare cards on the trams. With those provisos, I still think that there is merit in the scheme.

Mr. Piers Merchant: My views on this Bill seem to have had a good airing this evening already. It is almost as if, by a process of osmosis, hon. Members have discovered what I intended to say.
It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that I have serious reservations about the Bill: in fact, I do not like it at all. I have listened to the debate with great interest and I have heard echoes of my own concerns in many of the speeches given. I believe that, if one were to delve a bit deeper into hon. Members' views, one would find that many share a number of my grave doubts.
I have listened to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon). As I would have expected, he handled his brief with skill and charm. He is a close colleague of mine, whom I greatly respect; I admire his current work in his constituency and his past reputation as a councillor in Croydon borough.


He is my next-door neighbour, so the House will not be surprised to hear me say that, but it is my genuine opinion of him.
I share my hon. Friend's views on most local issues, including the quality and quantity of British Rail services and the future of South Norwood country park, which are particularly relevant to the Bill. We have worked closely together to save the park from a proposed development by Bromley borough, which would have devastated it. I therefore find it peculiar that he is now supporting a scheme that involves some destruction of the park.

Mr. Congdon: I have never made a secret of the fact that I would have preferred the scheme not to go through South Norwood country park. There was an option at an earlier stage that the tramlink should go up Elmers End road, but, unfortunately, Bromley council was not prepared to accept such a route. I can understand that, but the decision was unfortunate; hence the need to go across the country park. I would stress to my hon. Friend, however, that the impact on the park has been minimised, and that the route goes nowhere near the environmentally sensitive areas of the lake and the wetlands.

Mr. Merchant: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has concerns about the country park, and I am glad that he has expressed them.
Two immediate options are open to the promoters. One is for the system to end at Elmers End. That would bring the system into the Beckenham area—which my hon. Friend and the promoters seem to feel is an important and significant location. It would probably be possible to build a park-and-ride facility there, because there is a great deal of undeveloped land around Elmers End station.
The tramlink will come in to Elmers End, but only on a tiny shuttle service, which is projected to carry so few passengers that one wonders whether it will be worth running an hourly service on the line. The rest of the route into Beckenham could be left aside.
If the promoters feel that there is an advantage to be gained from taking the link further into Beckenham—which I question—another possibility is for the tramlink to run further alongside the British Rail line up to New Beckenham. There is a British Rail line, running from Elmers End right through Beckenham, which stops at stations such as Clock House, which is as close to the centre of Beckenham as Beckenham Junction station. That line also provides a direct route up to central London. If I have time, I will express some broader criticisms of the route into Beckenham junction and the need for it.
I want to make it clear that, although I am very critical of the Bill and many of the things that the promoters have suggested, I am not critical of my hon. Friend. I appreciate his position; he is, in a sense, a vehicle for the promoters of the scheme. I also appreciate that he recognises the need to ameliorate the traffic problems that exist in central Croydon. But the essence of my case is that, if there are problems there that need tackling, I do not see why it needs to involve the Beckenham area and running a link right up to Beckenham Junction.
I shall now turn to some of the remarks that have been made by other speakers this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East, who put the case for the promoters, rather simply and quickly dismissed the possibility of running better services on existing British Rail lines. I should like to ask him, and through him the

promoters, what detailed studies were carried out on the alternative routes that could have been built up around the existing British Rail system in that part of London.
I believe that, if such studies were carried out properly, one would see that it was perfectly possible to run a high level of service, if there is a demand for it, on existing British Rail lines, possibly with one or two fairly inexpensive adaptations, rather than building a whole new rail system costing, we are told, some £140 million.

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many of the problems between tramways in Britain as opposed to tramways in Europe is that Europe has a whole series of regulations that allow joint running between tramways and heavy railways? So far, those regulations do not exist in Britain.
Clearly, one of the problems with many tramway schemes is that they cannot run, even for short distances, on railway tracks on which heavy trains run. I realise that there could be a major problem with possible accidents, but I would have thought that, with modern signalling, it should be possible to have joint running.

Mr. Merchant: I entirely accept that point. It is a genuine one, and relevant to the argument. The Department of Transport recently produced a detailed briefing on light rail systems, but it makes rather arbitrary distinctions between trams, light rail systems, rapid transport systems. Indeed, at the end of the day, what is a railway?
There is no clear divide between any of those different systems, other than the definitions that are imposed on them. There is a slow transformation from the heavy rail system at one end to the miniature light railway at the other. Only where regulations are drafted does there become a legal distinction between the two.
There is scope for investigating the possibility of having lighter vehicles on British Rail lines, perhaps at times mixed with existing heavy British Rail rolling stock. It should be possible to find means of allowing the tracks to run in closer proximity than they do at the moment—perhaps to be interchangeable to an extent.
The point with which I was dealing before the hon. Gentleman intervened was the use of existing British Rail track, not for the rolling stock to run on, but for the tramlink to run alongside. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East rightly said, over a large section, but not all, of the route in Beckenham, that is exactly what is proposed.
However, my criticism relates to what my hon. Friend said. It particularly relates to the promoters, who say that, because these people have a British Rail line running at the bottom of their gardens, it does not matter that they should also have a light rail system operating there as well. It is a very peculiar argument that, if one is already troubled, it does not matter if one is troubled a great deal more, and troubled continuously.
For people who live close to a railway line, there is a great difference between a line that carries only a couple of services an hour and none after 8 pm, which is the situation over most of the stretch in Beckenham, and the line that runs from Beckenham Junction via Crystal Palace to Victoria. The former is very much a secondary line, although it is important for the people who travel on it.
That line is not heavily used. That will change with the arrival of tramlink into the area, as through trams will run


possibly from 6 am until midnight, eight times an hour in each direction. That is a completely different situation. I reject the argument that it is acceptable to intensify use on that line. If anything, I believe that that is the one thing that should not happen. If we must have new transport systems in that area—something I challenge—they should not be in areas where people are already disturbed.
My constituency measures three miles by two miles and contains 14 BR stations serving destinations north, south, east and west. As some of my hon. Friends have explained, although there is a radial rail system in London which emerges from the centre of London, lines in my constituency run at perfect right angles to that. It is possible to travel east and west slightly more easily than it is to travel north and south. In addition to lines serving central London, it is possible to travel to Croydon on the existing BR system. However that service is difficult.
At present, there are two ways of travelling to Croydon. One way is via Addiscombe station, which will disappear under the tramway proposal, as that station will be removed and there will be no service to that area. Addiscombe is half a mile from East Croydon, and it is one and a half minutes by car—I know, because I have driven there.
Although I accept that that route is not as convenient as travelling right into the centre of Croydon, perhaps something could be done at the Croydon end to improve matters. However, there is a service at the moment from Beckenham to Croydon via Addiscombe. The other service runs via Crystal Palace.
With that transport infrastructure, it is questionable whether the people of Beckenham would benefit from the proposed tramlink.

Mr. Congdon: Will my hon. Friend at least concede that the best judgment about whether the people of Beckenham would see great value in tramlink lies with the assessment of the private operators as to whether the scheme would be viable? They judge that it would be viable as an integral part of the network. Will my hon. Friend at least concede that they, and not he or I, are the best people to judge?

Mr. Merchant: I have examined in extreme detail the assessments of the predicted number of passengers who would travel on every section of tramway. I have read the summaries and alternative proposals, which have been studied professionally and with great expertise. I believe that the promoters' figures for the use of the tramlink system are deeply and fatally flawed. I simply do not believe that the custom exists to make the system a viable project.
In addition, the prospect of capital finance emerging to make the project work is very unlikely. I suspect that, when people in the private sector are asked to come forward with large amounts of cash to finance the project, and they study in great detail the likely demand and passenger flow, they will conclude that it is a risk which is not worth taking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-East made great play about the private sector providing capital for the scheme. I am not against the private sector doing that if it wishes, but the promoters have made it clear to me —I have pursued the matter in some detail because it is of

great importance to me—that they will definitely need the addition of public funds in order to raise sufficient money to build the tramway system.
We now have a curious situation. The promoters say that they would like to build the system but that they will need public money and that they hope to raise private money on the back of the public money that will be pledged.
In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister has said, quite rightly, that he can give no pledge about public money for the system. He said that he would consider any application and that he might be in favour, but rightly added many caveats. He said that he would need to be convinced that the system was viable and that it would have to take its place among other competing systems.
The House has passed other such Bills. Indeed, I was on the Committee on one of them, and I did not oppose it, because I do not oppose light rail on principle. The system will have to take its place among those other demands and, most crucially, it will have to take its place alongside other Government priorities.
Perhaps I am doing an unusual thing, but I am offering my hon. Friend the opportunity not to have to come up with a large sum of public money. I am offering him a way out by suggesting that, if the Bill does not go through and the scheme is not developed, he can save the money that he might otherwise have felt obliged to put into it.

Mr. Ottaway: In such an eventuality, the money could be used for improving the road infrastructure in Croydon.

Mr. Merchant: That is possible, but I am sure that, if the House were offered £40 million and hon. Gentlemen were invited to decide how to spend the money, there would be no shortage of requests for it to be spent on a wide variety of alternative projects, either in transport or elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said something that was echoed by a number of other hon. Gentlemen and caused me considerable concern. He said that this was only an enabling Bill. The implication is that it therefore does not matter much, and that we should give the project the go-ahead and see what emerges after all the details have been worked out. If we reach that stage, to whom should the promoters go for permission to continue? They will have to go to no one because, if they have the money, they can go ahead with the scheme within the wide powers given by the Bill.
My interest is the ordinary people who live in my constituency and, to an extent, those who live elsewhere but will be affected by the project, who have expressed grave concern about the impact that building and operating the tramlink will have on their houses and daily lives. They have a right to be heard, and they are entitled to have their concerns taken into account.
I know that the Committee will consider much of their evidence, and I am glad about that, but it will know that this is only an enabling Bill, so its members may feel that, on balance, the principle of the Bill is acceptable so long as various measures are taken to look after the concerns of the hundreds of people who will be affected by the tramlink.
When the pressure is off—the pressure of the commercial and transport lobby, who are pushing the scheme so hard—will the promoters be prepared to talk to those people who live in the houses affected? I suspect that


they will be far more interested in pushing ahead with the project, if they can get the money. So I am worried about the Bill being dismissed as simply an enabling Bill.

Mr. Michael Colvin: We have just been through a similar debate in relation to Southampton. The House failed to pass a similar project because no provisions had been made for park and ride. Can my hon. Friend tell the House how much provision has been made in this case for car parks, so that people can park their cars before getting on the tramway system? That is fundamental to the viability of the system.

Mr. Merchant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because it is essential. Very few, if any, light rail systems of this nature can operate without feeder passengers and park-and-ride facilities. That is simply because enough passengers cannot be attracted from a wide enough area to make such a system viable, particularly in the deregulated and competitive atmosphere that we are likely to face by the time the project, if it goes ahead, is built.
The only way in which such systems can become viable is by having good park-and-ride provision. There is no such provision in the system. It is not catered for by the Bill, and its promoters have been extremely coy about the possibility of it. In fact, they have effectively said that they have rejected the addition of park-and-ride facilities in most areas of the system.
In Beckenham, about which I am most concerned, the Beckenham Junction link has no park-and-ride facilities at all. That is of grave concern to my constituents, because they feel that the immediate danger they face is that people who use the system will come in—

Mr. Congdon: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 8.

Division No. 356]
[9.55 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butler, Peter


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Amess, David
Cash, William


Ancram, Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cohen, Harry


Austin-Walker, John
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Congdon, David


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Barnes, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bates, Michael
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cox, Tom


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cryer, Bob


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Benton, Joe.
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Day, Stephen


Bermingham, Gerald
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dewar, Donald


Boateng, Paul
Dixon, Don


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boyes, Roland
Dover, Den


Brandreth, Gyles
Dowd, Jim


Brazier, Julian
Duncan, Alan


Bright, Graham
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth





Durant, Sir Anthony
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Maxton, John


Fishburn, Dudley
Milligan, Stephen


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forth, Eric
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Morley, Elliot


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fraser, John
Mullin, Chris


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Nelson, Anthony


Fry, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Norris, Steve


Gerrard, Neil
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Gillan, Cheryl
Page, Richard


Godsiff, Roger
Paice, James


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Patnick, Irvine


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Pickles, Eric


Gorst, John
Pike, Peter L.


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gunnell, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hague, William
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Prescott, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Richards, Rod


Hardy, Peter
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Harris, David
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Haselhurst, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Hayes, Jerry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Heald, Oliver
Short, Clare


Hendry, Charles
Simpson, Alan


Heppell, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hinchliffe, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hoyle, Doug
Snape, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spellar, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Sproat, Iain


Jessel, Toby
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Stephen, Michael


Khabra, Piara S.
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Kirkhope, Timothy
Straw, Jack


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Thomason, Roy


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Knox, Sir David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Tracey, Richard


Legg, Barry
Trend, Michael


Leighton, Ron
Trotter, Neville


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Wallace, James


Lewis, Terry
Waller, Gary


Lidington, David
Walley, Joan


Lightbown, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Watts, John


Loyden, Eddie
Wells, Bowen


Luff, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Lynne, Ms Liz
Wicks, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Willetts, David


McCartney, Ian
Winnick, David


McFall, John
Wise, Audrey


MacKay, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Mackinlay, Andrew
Wray, Jimmy


Maclean, David
Yeo, Tim


McLeish, Henry



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mahon, Alice
Mr. Vivian Bendall and Mr. Richard Ottaway.


Maitland, Lady Olga



Marek, Dr John





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Spink, Dr Robert


Bennett, Andrew F.
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)



Horam, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Mr. Piers Merchant and Mr. Edward Leigh.


Shaw, David (Dover)

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94

It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), put forthwith the deferred Question on Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1993–94 (Class VIII, Vote 1) and the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other estimates appointed for consideration this day.

Class VIII, Vote 1

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £1,807,298,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on compensation for criminal injuries, probation, police and superannuation payments for police and fire services.

Class VIII, Vote 3

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £745,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on police, the forensic science service, emergency planning, fire, the Fire Service College, court services, other services related to crime, probation and after-care, miscellaneous services, prevention of drug abuse, control of immigration and nationality, issue of passports etc., community services; and on administration (excluding the provision made for prisons administration carried on Class VIII, Vote 2).

Class IX, Vote 1

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £427,760,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the court service, magistrates' courts, legal aid administration, tribunals, the court building programme, certain other legal services and a payment to the Land Registry Trading Fund.

Class IX, Vote 5

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £135,693,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during

the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Crown Prosecution Service on administrative costs including the hire of private prosecuting agents.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question which she was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (I) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.)

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £92,536,513,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1994, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 495, 496, 497 and 711.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the five foregoing Resolutions and upon the Resolution of 10th June and the eight Resolutions of 8th July, relating to estimates, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL

Mr. Anthony Nelson accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March 1994, to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 7 February 1992, as can be found in column 325 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) asked a question about the Widgery tribunal, which was answered by the Attorney-General. I tabled a question for 18 October, which came fourth in the list of questions to the Attorney-General on that subject. I have now received a letter saying that it has been transferred to questions on Northern Ireland—which means that, as far as oral questions for 18 October are concerned, it has disappeared. However, it is clearly established by precedent that such matters should be dealt with by the Attorney-General: he deals with tribunal issues.
I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can I ensure that my question is re-established on the list of questions to be answered orally by the Attorney-General?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a matter for the Chair; the hon. Gentleman must pursue it with the Ministers concerned.

Suppression of Terrorism (India)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move,
That the draft Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (Application of Provisions) (India) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
Extradition is the cornerstone of the international effort to ensure that criminals cannot escape justice by crossing frontiers. It is increasingly recognised by Governments that this effort needs to be reinforced. The order will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the extradition treaty that we concluded with India in 1992.
Extradition arrangements with India go back for over a century. This new treaty strengthens them, and sends an important message to terrorists that their activities will not be tolerated. To a very large extent, the treaty replicates the existing arrangements—the Commonwealth scheme —under which we and India are already able to extradite suspected or convicted offenders between ourselves, and indeed almost all other Commonwealth countries. Some hon. Members have asked why we need to have a treaty at all. As I will demonstrate, the treaty is an important joint statement of our mutual determination to defeat terrorism, for there are two new features which the order will enable us to introduce for the first time into our arrangements with India.
First, we and the Indian Government have agreed that, for the purposes of extradition between us, a fugitive will no longer be able to resist his extradition on the grounds that any of the offences listed in the treaty was of a "political" character, and therefore outside the scope of extradition. That will bring our arrangements with India into line with those with almost all western European states, and with the United States of America.
The listed offences, which find their equivalent in schedule 1 to the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, are serious, and they are those most likely to be terrorist related. Among other things, they relate to the hijacking of aircraft, hostage taking, murder, manslaughter and serious physical assaults, causing explosions, and some firearms offences. I am sure that no Member of the House would wish those accused of such crimes to be able to escape extradition solely on the ground that they are politically motivated. Indeed, I do not believe that our courts would accept that incidents of terrorist violence should be regarded as political. So this element of the treaty is not so much a curtailment to one of the traditional safeguards that all extradition arrangements have contained as a tightening of the law.
Let me assure the House that the treaty does not affect any other safeguard for the fugitive. Every case will continue to be considered on its merits and in strict accordance with our law. Offences under military law will continue to, be outside the scope of extradition, unless they are also offences under the general criminal law of both countries.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister tell the House how many applications for extradition India has made in the past 10 years, and how many complaints it has made about the current provisions of the Commonwealth scheme?

Mr. Maclean: I am not aware of any severe complaints about the Commonwealth scheme, but since the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 came into force on 1 September 1967 the Indian Government have extradited one person to the United Kingdom in 1978, and that person was later convicted here of perjury and various forgery charges. I understand that three applications are currently outstanding, two from 1985 for conspiracy and deception suspects and one from 1987 for a conspiracy and fraud suspect. I hope that that is a full answer to the hon. Gentleman.
The important point is that the country to which a fugitive is returned will continue to be unable to add on any new charges for offences that were not disclosed by the same set of facts as the extradition offence, unless the returning country has consented. All requests to this country will continue to be scrutinised twice by Ministers, and at least once by the courts.

Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend's statement so far assumes that the Indian Government act as a democratic organisation, but they do not. Some of my hon. Friends and I believe that if people are deported, their human rights will not be recognised, as is often the case in India now.

Mr. Maclean: I shall come to India's human rights record in a moment, and to the firm assurances that the Indian Government have given the British Government. I know that there are deeply held views on both sides of the Chamber and on both, or all, sides of the argument. However, I must be concerned not with political matters but with ensuring that any application that comes before the British Government and the British courts is treated fairly and objectively in terms of British law. I assure my hon. Friend and all hon. Members that, whatever their individual opinions may be about the political situation in other countries, including India, that is not a consideration for the British courts.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Why not?

Mr. Maclean: When such cases come before Ministers and before the British courts, the facts will be studied. A prima facie case, which would satisfy our courts that there is a case to answer, will have to be produced. I do not think that my hon. Friends would want the British courts to start involving themselves in extraneous political considerations.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend will know about the present problems relating to the availability of legal aid. Will he assure the House that any individual subjected to such pressure will be properly represented in court? Surely we should guarantee that as a basic right of any individual in such a position.

Mr. Maclean: I do not think that my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should make special or additional changes to the legal aid scheme. He knows how it operates and all those who are eligible for it. I would merely stress that any applications coming before the British Government will be scrutinised twice by Ministers and at least once by the British courts. We will be scrutinising them on the basis of the facts and whether there is a prima facie case to answer.

Mr. John Heppell: With how many states outside western Europe have the Government separate extradition treaties?

Mr. Maclean: We have an extradition treaty with most countries in western Europe and with the United States of America. We have now concluded an extradition treaty with India. Whether we have further extradition treaties with other countries is a matter for negotiation and consideration. The countries that would want to seek reciprocal arrangements with us are inevitably those that have an interest in terrorist matters. Those countries that have no terrorist problems are unlikely to want to conclude a treaty with us, although we have deep concerns about terrorism.
Extradition will remain the ultimate discretion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his decisions will continue to be the subject of scrutiny by the courts. He must refuse if there is reason to believe the request is not bona fide or if the person's trial or treatment on return would be prejudiced by his or her race, religion, nationality or political opinions. We take that duty and obligation very seriously.

Sir Dudley Smith: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve and I am not against the general principle. However, is he aware that a large number of Sikhs who are British citizens are very much opposed to many of the efforts of the Indian Government, particularly on matters of human rights? They must be at least uneasy about some of the provisions.

Mr. Maclean: I note and respect the point that my hon. Friend has made. Of course, I am aware of those concerns, which will be felt in many quarters, and I shall talk about human rights in a moment.
I repeat the sentence that I have just uttered about the duty on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself in considering the cases. We will operate as we are required to do by law. We must refuse if there is reason to believe that the request is not bona fide or if we suspect or have reason to believe that the person's trial or treatment on return would be prejudiced by reason of race, religion or nationality. I can give my hon. Friend that firm assurance.

Mr. Tom Cox: The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the role of the courts here. However, is he equally aware that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber are concerned about the role of the courts in India? What assurance do we have from the Indian Government that anyone who is extradited from this country to India will soon be brought before the courts, will have adequate legal representation in the courts and will not be subject to pressures—whatever pressures they may be, and there will most certainly be physical pressures —once they are returned to India?

Mr. Maclean: We would not have concluded the treaty or be bringing the order before the House if we had good reason to believe that those suggestions would turn out to be the reality.
Of course, we shall monitor carefully any requests for extradition. If one were received and granted, we would monitor carefully what happened if and when a person was returned.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I have given way a great deal already and many hon. Members want to speak. I wish to conclude my remarks and hon. Gentlemen may make their own speeches.
The Secretary of State must also refuse if it would be unjust or oppressive to return the person either because the offence was trivial or committed a long time ago or where there is reason to believe that the accusation was not made in good faith or in the interests of justice.
Genuine political refugees have nothing to fear from the treaty or from the order. Our law will continue to preclude extradition where we believe that the request has been politically motivated, and the treaty contemplates nothing less. [Interruption.] I must make progress. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also wishes to speak in this debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know that, if the Minister does not give way, they must resume their seats.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of us know that we will not be called in this debate. If we have reasonable points to put briefly to the Minister, as a courtesy to the House he should at least let us put them to him.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Maclean: I deliberately kept my speech short to allow as many hon. Members as possible to intervene. I have already given way a number of times in this short debate—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must contain themselves.

Mr. Maclean: I am sure—

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: I will not give way.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that suspected terrorists should not be able to exploit a defence that was certainly not intended to shield them from the justice of our democratic partners. We cannot allow the United Kingdom to be seen as a safe haven for such people. The effect of the order is to say to fugitives that they cannot escape justice for serious crimes simply by claiming that they were politically motivated. If we are satisfied that they will receive fair treatment, they can expect to be returned.
It is obvious that some hon. Members will remain concerned at the prospect of returning terrorists or, indeed, anyone else to India because of anxiety about human rights in that country.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister spoke of "returning terrorists" to India in advance of a trial. Surely, he should not say that. He should say people who are accused, suspected or indicted on charges—he should not say that they are terrorists.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a point for debate; it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Maclean: I am sorry that the debate has come down to such semantics. If it makes hon. Members happy, of course I mean suspected terrorists.
We recognise the genuine concerns of hon. Members about the human rights situation. We have spoken frankly to the Indian Government about the importance that we attach to human rights. We have been encouraged by the decision of the Indian Government to legislate for an independent Indian human rights commission. The Indian Prime Minister has assured us that violations of human rights are and will be fully investigated and wrong-doers punished. He is determined to ensure that his country deserves international respect, of which this treaty is an expression.
I explained earlier that the treaty and the order contain two differences from our previous extradition arrangements with India under the Commonwealth scheme. I have spoken briefly about the first difference and, undoubtedly, many hon. Members will have points to make about that. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is here to take on board those points and respond to them, if he has an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a proper point of order.

Mr. Vaz: It is a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the second time in 24 hours that a Home Office Minister has come to the Dispatch Box and read out a speech prepared by the Home Office without giving way to hon. Members on either side of the House. This order is as important as any other business before the House. It concerns the ratification of a treaty that has been signed by a Minister.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter of order for the Chair. As I said before, and as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, it is a matter for whoever has the floor of to decide whether to give way. As a matter of fact, the Minister has given way.

Mr. Maclean: For the record, I have given way five times in a one-and-a-half-hour debate.
The second new feature is the extension of United Kingdom jurisdiction over certain of the more serious offences listed in schedule 1 to the 1978 Act when they have been committed or attempted in India.
Extra-territorial jurisdiction can be a valuable tool in our efforts to bring criminals to justice. It is an alternative to extradition, rather than a replacement for it. For example, under the order, a person could be prosecuted in the United Kingdom for causing an explosion in India with intent to endanger life if, for some reason, extradition were not possible and all the evidential requirements of our system could be met. The same would apply in a case of murder, kidnapping, hijacking, and other serious terrorist offences. This new jurisdiction in the case of India will also enable us, in due course, to ensure that our courts arc able to enforce the orders of Indian courts confiscating terrorists' funds. That will be the subject of an Order in Council under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
Because certain serious crimes of violence committed in India will, as I have explained, become offences in the United Kingdom, it will as a consequence become an offence in the United Kingdom to conspire to incite in the United Kingdom people to commit such serious crimes of violence in India. Once again, this will bring our arrangements with India into line with those with most

western European countries and the United States of America. Just as it is unacceptable that those who commit in India serious crimes of this nature should abuse the extradition procedures of this country—

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maclean: I shall conclude this section and then give way briefly.
Those who organise crimess from this country cannot be allowed to escape the consequences, simply because their intention was to see a very serious crime committed in another country. Needless to say, any such charge would have to be accompanied by sufficient evidence to persuade our courts that it was substantiated.

Mr. Heald: Many of my constituents who are Sikhs and Kashmiris are concerned that, whereas in Europe we are reasonably satisfied that the judicial arrangements for the people who are extradited are acceptable, in India the judicial system is not as effective and has a political background to it, so there is a risk of not getting a fair trial. Would my hon. Friend wish to comment on that?

Mr. Maclean: We take the view that, if we can conclude an extradition treaty with another democratic Government, it is because we have been satisfied that the judicial system is such that trials will be fair. I repeat: before anyone is extradited, he or she will have to satisfy British legal procedures and British Ministers that there is a prima facie case to answer. The burden of proof will he the same burden as we have in British courts in the present committal proceedings.
Obviously, genuinely held doubts and concerns will remain in some quarters of the House. Let me re-emphasise that, to a very large degree, the treaty represents nothing more than an endorsement of the current state of affairs. But it also shows, importantly, that we intend to fight terrorism in co-operation with the Indian Government.
The Indian Parliament is already part-way through the process of making the necessary legislative arrangements to enable ratification of the treaty. The order will come into force only when the Indian procedures have been completed, and on the day when we exchange instruments of ratification.
The bulk of the treaty requires no legislation in order to give effect to it in this country, but its two special features, which are the subject of the order and which I have endeavoured to explain simply, mark it out. They send a firm message to terrorists that neither we nor the Indians will tolerate their activities within our borders and that we will ensure that they face justice in one or other of our countries if they do not take heed.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Graham Allen: Last night the Government introduced a series of petty, grudging and introverted measures to handicap our immigration and asylum appeals system. Only one day later, they bring to the House another measure which may be the subject of widely differing interpretations. The Labour party and. I hope, every hon. Member fully supports initiatives intended to combat terrorism and human rights abuses.


The danger is that the Government may be seen to be dealing with one of those problems, through this extradition treaty, at the expense of the other.
The treaty was widely criticised for the context in which it was signed. We certainly want to increase trade with a close friend and ally, as India is, but is this order the political price being extracted for a number of trade deals? When the Prime Minister visited India—indeed, when he addressed the British-Indian parliamentary group earlier this week—were human rights as high as trade issues on his agenda? I hope that the Minister will answer that question.
The Labour party welcomes in principle terrorism extradition provisions, wherever they apply. Terrorism is not merely a blight on the democracies of the west but, sadly, must be faced by all democracies. We must be constantly vigilant against it and the Labour party has always supported all reasonable international attempts to bring terrorists to trial.
The Government cannot, however, hide behind our loathing of terrorism. A number of questions about the order must be answered and I hope that the Minister or his colleague will answer our five basic questions—the Minister has already tackled one or two of them in his speech—when he winds up the debate.
First, why do the Indian Government require additional powers? Has a case been made for saying that the Commonwealth extradition agreement is not adequate to tackle the problems of the issue facing India and the United Kingdom?
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asked, how many complaints have been received about the inadequacy of the Commowealth extradition agreement? At face value, only one request in 10 years from the entire area hardly shows a massive demand for change.
Thirdly, what new powers will be exercised under the new treaty? Is it window dressing or a diplomatic symbol agreed because of the Prime Minister's visit to India?
Fourthly, if India can get a separate treaty, are the Government negotiating a further treaty with any other country with terrorism problems?
Fifthly, on a more technical issue, do the provisions of the extradition treaty apply to people with dual nationality as well as to Indian nationals?
Our welcome for the order is tempered by a grave disquiet about continuing reports of breaches of human rights in India, many of which are alleged to he perpetrated or implicitly condoned by those in positions of power in both the military and the Government there. I will elaborate on that issue shortly.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend mentioned violations of human rights. He will therefore recognise the problem of Kashmir. Is it not strange that, although the Government said that the relevant United Nations resolution should be applied to Kashmir, they now seem prepared to waive that? How will they regard a political offence in relation to Kashmir when for many years they have clearly refused to carry out the United Nations resolution?

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.

Mr. David Young: Will my hon. Friend take on board the concern felt by many hon.

Members who represent Kashmiri communities about the Indian Government's failure to allow Amnesty International, the press and Members of Parliament from this country to visit India to investigate the position there? The way in which the measure is being railroaded through makes the British legal system look like an instrument for Indian oppression. Is there not a deep and abiding concern that the term "terrorist" may be being used instead of the term "freedom fighter"? We are against genuine terrorists, but the United Kingdom cannot act as an instrument of oppression of another state.

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend will know that Labour Members—not least my hon. and right hon. Friends from the shadow Foreign Office team—have raised those matters continually and will continue to do so. However, I am pleased to welcome the fact that the Indian Government are prepared to allow international human rights organisations to enter areas of concern. I understand that for some years Amnesty International was not allowed to visit parts of Kashmir. I shall seek further reassurances on the subject, but I am pleased to hear what I understand to be an agreement to the effect that Amnesty International will be allowed to go in and investigate matters where it feels it appropriate to do so.
On the issue of human rights abuses, Amnesty
International's 1992 report states:
25,000 political prisoners, including some prisoners of conscience, were held without charge or trial under special or preventative detention laws. Torture and ill-treatment continued to be widespread and systematic, resulting in scores of deaths in custody. Hundreds of people 'disappeared' or were extra-judicially executed in 'encounters' staged by the police or security forces. The security forces deliberately killed unarmed civilians suspected of supporting insurgents. At least six people were judicially executed.
I think that the House will agree that if that report is
correct it is profoundly disturbing for a country which holds a special and honoured place in the fellowship of modern democratic nations.

Mr. John Watts: The hon. Gentleman said that the fact that the Indian Government were expressing a willingness to open up to Amnesty International and take action on human rights was to be welcomed. Does he agree that it would have been better if the British Government had waited until the measures were in place so that the Indian Government could point to an improved human rights record before the order was brought before the House tonight?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Allen: The response from both sides of the House to the hon. Gentleman's intervention shows hon. Members' feelings on the subject.

Mr. Corbyn: While an examination by Amnesty International or other human rights organisations of the conditions in which prisoners are held is important and necessary, and should have been available for 20 years, does not a fundamental problem remain? The police in India have taken upon themselves—with Government support—the power to arrest and detain without charge or trial for unlimited periods, in secret prisons and without the opportunity for the due process of law. It is on that basis that torture follows.

Mr. Allen: The Acts passed in India which legitimise many of the practices to which Amnesty International and


I have referred lie at the centre of the problem. The state appears to feel that it is under threat and therefore passes Acts which legitimise actions that would be deplored by all hon. Members. That is one of the reasons why we are less than enthusiastic about supporting the extension of extradition rights, which were previously limited to our European Community partners and the United States.
Such issues have led my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West, for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and many other colleagues from both sides of the House to attend the debate. I pay tribute to them for doing so. It should be placed on record that many hon. Members from all parties are present. To my knowledge, there is no three-line Whip for the debate. The fact that both sides of the House are crowded at this time of night and on such a day shows the seriousness with which hon. Members view the subject.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, and what he has just said about the presence of hon. Members from both sides of the House who are extremely concerned about the human rights aspects of the matter. Without wishing to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, as the official Labour spokesman on the subject, will he join in the Lobby a number of us who feel that we must vote against the extradition treaty?

Mr. Allen: I hope that it will become clear as I continue my speech that the Opposition feel that the extradition provisions on terrorism are obviously necessary in some parts of the globe. I do not believe that anyone would wish to be associated with any weakening of the fight against terrorism. But equally, I hope that the reservations that I have outlined so far will make it clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House that we have some profound difficulties with the way in which the Government have drawn up the agreement and the way in which they are proceeding tonight.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allen: No, I wish to make some progress. I have been relatively generous in giving way. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
It would be unfair and unbalanced exclusively to blame the Indian authorities for abuses of rights in India. There is no question but that militant groups have also been responsible for breaches of human rights. For example, in their report on human rights in Jammu and Kashmir. Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights identified executions, rape, torture and indiscriminate attacks by militant groups in Kashmir. Those abuses can never be ignored or condoned, regardless of any personal views about the status of Kashmir.
If the Government had accompanied signing the treaty or publication of the order with a condemnation of rights abuses of all natures by all parties in India, and made positive proposals to help to reduce them, perhaps their stance would be more acceptable. No one underestimates the massive and intractable difficulties facing India and its political society. Once again, however, I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity, either in his reply or in an intervention, to reassure the House that the Government will make every effort to promote the cause of human rights in India.
We unequivocally welcome the apparent change in the Indian Government's policy on allowing Amnesty into areas to which it was previously denied access. If the provisions are not to lead to miscarriages of justice, abuse of rights—as I have said, hon. Members are right to have expressed anxiety at the extent of abuse in India—it is vital that the British Government effectively enforce articles 9 and 16 of the treaty. Article 9 allows refusals of extradition on the grounds of political opinion, and article 16 allows refusals on the grounds that the death penalty may be incurred.
We need reassurances from the Minister not only that adequate safeguards exist but that the political will exists to enforce them. Assurances must be given that the treaty would be suspended if the death sentence would he imposed on anyone extradited from Britain under the treaty. I urge the Minister not to hesitate to refuse extradition if a real risk exists of the accused receiving an unfair trial.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has rightly identified some reservations that are held by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, but four times I have counted the hon. Gentleman saying that his party has supported the general fight against terrorism. Why, then, has his party consistently opposed the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

Mr. Allen: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He becomes a bigger joke every time he opens his mouth.
The Minister might also take the chance later to comment on the worries that many hon. Members have about the long delays in bringing cases to trial in India. Commenting on other nations taking a long time to bring cases to trial may wear a little thin when we look at the record of the judiciary and legal system in Britain. None the less, the delays are a serious matter and I hope that the Minister will take them into consideration.
The Government must also be sensitive to the signals that the order may give to the settled communities in the United Kingdom. Fears have rightly been expressed about the implications for legitimate fund-raising activities in the communities in the United Kingdom. That fear is that they might eventually be drawn into the extradition net as well. I understand that further proposals to limit fund raising are possibly in the pipeline. I hope that the Minister will reassure the wider communities who do a great deal of perfectly legitimate fund raising that there is no possibility of those who raise such funds being caught by any provision which might result in their extradition.

Mr. Dicks: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the activities of the Indian security services among the Sikh and Muslim communities in this country?

Mr. Allen: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of such activity, we shall all be interested to hear about it. I have none.
This order is a small piece of a larger puzzle. That puzzle is not a matter for us; it is a picture that the Indian Government and people will have to piece together. It will involve establishing a safe and democratic role for India in the international community. India will have to resolve its relationship with its neighbours, especially Pakistan. It will also have to work out solutions to the ethnic and religious troubles from which its communities suffer. These


problems are the province of the people of India and only they can resolve them. As a long-standing friend of India, the British Government have a crucial role to play. We shall be respected as India's friend only by being—and being seen to be—even-handed.

Mr. Gary Waller: It might be said that nothing could be more reasonable or right than an extradition treaty directed against terrorism. Treaties of this kind, however, should only be concluded between countries whose legal processes and methods of upholding justice and order show a close correspondence. It is to my great regret that that cannot be said of our country and India, despite the fact that it is a great country with which we wish to enjoy the warmest relations.
There must be serious doubts about the wisdom of concluding an extradition treaty with a country whose recent human rights record reads as badly as India's. For many years, I have been a member of Amnesty International. It has a first-class record of investigating allegations of human rights abuse and of recording their outcome without fear or favour. Any country whose record is under scrutiny is unwise to seek to undermine Amnesty's reputation.
Recognising pressure from this and other directions, India has often, and for many years, promised to open up the country to visits from human rights organisations, but invariably applications for such visits have ended up with refusals or obstruction. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) should pay close attention to that fact.
Recently, assurances have been given that such visits would be acceptable in principle, provided that state and central Governments were both in agreement. But only a matter of a few days ago, Amnesty's visit to Bombay—I remind the House that there is no insurgency there—was refused. It is therefore hardly surprising that some scepticism about such announcements has developed.
Interestingly enough, three days ago, on 17 July, the Indian High Commissioner in London, Dr. Singhvi, stated on a BBC World Service broadcast that international human rights organisations would now be allowed to enter Kashmir "under certain conditions". He repeated the offer on Monday in the presence of many of the hon. Members who are present for this debate. Although the commitment is welcome in principle, it would be helpful to know what those conditions are.
Will Amnesty officials be allowed to talk not only to security officers and Government officials but to representatives of opposition groups and nongovernmental organisations? Will they be able to travel freely without military or Government escort? We need answers to these key questions. As Her Majesty's Government have in the past urged India to admit human rights organisations, I hope that they will press for this agreement in principle to be put speedily into effect, with none of the restrictions that would throw doubt on the ability of human rights organisations to investigate fully and freely.
Concern has been expressed about how the treaty will relate to the disputed areas of Jammu and Kashmir. Many would argue that, since those areas are still subject to dispute, special provisions should apply to that treaty.
One cannot overlook the reports of apparently deliberate killings of unarmed civilians by members of the security forces. One cannot ignore the widespread claims of torture, rape and the arbitrary arrests of suspected separatists. An increasing number of them are alleged to have disapeared or died while in custody. Since 1985, nearly 500 cases of deaths in custody have been recorded in India. Very few have been investigated properly. Amnesty and other organisations have recorded hundreds of such cases, and I wish there was time in this short debate to refer to them. I shall, however, refer to one.
In December 1990, a doctor in Srinagar made a statement about a patient that he had treated in hospital. It is important to note that, in late 1989, extra powers had been granted to the security forces in response to mounting violence on the part of armed opposition groups in the state. The doctor reported:
I yesterday discharged a patient aged between 18 and 20, who had been in this hospital for three months. Twenty per cent. or more of his body had suffered deep burns from a hot clothes iron. These burns were … so serious that I and other doctors had only just succeeded in saving his life. He had also been shot by a bullet in the armpit. His torturing with the clothes iron had all been done during interrogation by the regular army at Sopore.
It is because of that case, and so many others, that great concern has been expressed, here and in the Indian subcontinent, about the way in which those who are extradited and the many others held in Jannu, Kashmir and other disputed parts of India will be treated in custody.
I remind the House that special laws are in force in Jammu and Kashmir that curb legal safeguards and encourage human rights violations, for example, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. That legislation tends to give the security forces carte blanche for their actions.
Allegations about human rights abuses have also been made in Assam and Punjab. Earlier in the year, numerous allegations were made even in Delhi about human rights abuses and deaths in custody following torture by the police.
The Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Rao, has issued a clear condemnation of such behaviour. On 17 February, he addressed the Indian police and acknowledged the threat to the reputation of India on the world stage. He urged the police to
ensure that excesses are not committed, especially in custody. Human rights are of paramount importance in a democracy like ours.
Recognition at the highest level of a serious problem of custodial violence, which demands to be addressed, has not been matched by an ability or determination to carry into practice the commitment, given in the name of India, to protect human rights. Last year, the Government said that they would strengthen legal safeguards for detainees in custody, but they have obviously failed to take the necessary action.
Such injustices can be remedied, even in part, only by ensuring that, in all cases of torture and death in custody, a speedy independent inquiry is held, and those


responsible are brought to justice. I believe that the extradition treaty should not have been concluded until such a commitment had been given.
It is true that murders and atrocities have been committed by armed opponents of the Indian Government, many of them separatists. Surely it is worth bearing in mind the fact that nothing feeds militancy more assiduously than oppression and unpunished atrocities committed by those who are supposed to be responsible for upholding law and order. It is hardly surprising that the number of people seeking separation from India has swelled since India moved 500,000 security forces into Jammu and Kashmir and gave them such wide discretion to act. It should be noted that India has as many troops occupied with those people it regards as its own, as it has dedicated to external defence.
India is, of course, under pressure and I believe that that pressure should continue. Last month, the United States Congress passed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill cutting $4·1 million from US overseas aid to India. It is worth remembering that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said shortly after taking office that the British Government's policy in future would be to link foreign aid to a country's human rights record, and that India is this country's leading recipient in terms of foreign aid.
In relation to the need for an extradition treaty, my hon. Friend the Minister said that passing this measure tonight will send a signal. I suggest that, to a considerable extent, it will signal to India that Britain is willing to tolerate abuses of the kind to which I have referred. I am sure that we would not be willing to tolerate that, but that is the signal which, regrettably, many people will understand. In this country, the treaty will be seen as a threat hanging over those who wish to express their views in our free society in the United Kingdom.
We should be concerned, not just about the Government's intentions in bringing the treaty before us tonight, but about the perception in Britain and in the Indian subcontinent. Considering that perception, I must say that there is no way in which I can possibly support the treaty. Indeed, I must oppose it.

Mr. Roger Godsiff: Like the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), I regret that I also cannot support the treaty—not because I am not as committed as any hon. Member to combating international terrorism, but because I do not believe that the order contributes to achieving that. I also believe—this legitimate fear is shared by many hon. Members—that the treaty will be used by the Indian Government to persecute still further Kashmiris who are seeking to do nothing more than to assert their legitimate right to determine their own future.
The treaty will include all Indian citizens. Many people in Jammu and Kashmir do not consider themselves Indian citizens; they consider themselves Kashmiris. However, the treaty presupposes that they are Indian citizens and that the whole of Jammu and Kashmir belong to India, and it includes all the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir in its provisions.
The Minister told us that the order will simply extend the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 to enble international terrorism to be combated in a better

way. We have already heard the number of cases where India has asked for extradition and the number of cases where the United Kingdom Government have asked the Indian Government for extradition. That clearly shows that the current arrangements are working perfectly well. There is no need for this measure.
We are told that India's democratic institutions and judicial arrangements mirror our own, and that it is therefore quite appropriate for us to have an extradition treaty with India. That might operate in theory, but it most certainly does not operate in practice in the Kashmir valley.
The Kashmir Bar Association recently provided figures that show that 15,000 bail applications are pending in Indian-held Kashmir. Some 5,000 bail applications were granted, but the authorities refused to implement them, and 500 cases of habeas corpus are outstanding.
Indian-held Kashmir is not run by a judicial authority; it is run by the Indian military. To do that, vast numbers of troops have been deployed throughout Indian-held Kashmir. Indeed, the latest figures suggest that, for every 10 Kashmiris, there is now one Indian troop in Indian-held Kashmir. As the hon. Member for Keighley pointed out, Amnesty International has documented many hundreds of cases of human rights abuse, but, against that background of abuse, the Government are seeking to pursue an extradition treaty which will put relations with India on a par with arrangements with other western countries.
Our own suppression of terrorism legislation grew out of the accord of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. All signatories to that convention are European countries. They were signatories to the European convention on human rights; India was not. They were all signatories to the Helsinki agreement; India was not. As a matter of interest, they were all signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; India was not.
We are being asked to give India special provisions that only one non-European country has been accorded, and that is the United States of America. Whatever our feelings about the United States of America, I am not aware of any part of the USA being under martial law or of the human rights abuses that have been catalogued in Jammu and Kashmir occurring in the USA.
How can the Government argue that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that, under the treaty, the person being extradited
would not be prejudiced … or be punished, detained or restricted on grounds of political opinion
when the Indian army is daily carrying out a war against the people of Indian-held Kashmir and when, under the Indian constitution, it is an act of treason for any Indian national to advocate secession by part of the union from the state of India?
That means that, if any Kashmiri were to argue the cause of self-determination for the people of Kashmir and secession from the Indian union, in the eyes of the Indian Government, he would be guilty of treason. In that case, would the Indian Government have the right to ask for him to be extradited back to India to stand trial for treason?
I cannot but believe that the British Government have put human rights at the forefront of their consideration of the issue. I cannot help but feel that what is really driving the treaty is our desire to increase commerce with India and, above all, to increase the arms trade to India. One


third of our current exports to India relate to the arms trade. A junior Defence Minister is actively involved in promoting the arms trade with India.
Senior executives of Marconi have a long list of examples of export licences being conveniently rearranged to ensure that words such as "atomic" and "nuclear" are left out of those licences. We are well aware from available evidence that India is acquiring a massive nuclear arsenal, and the British Government are only too happy to assist with that.
The treaty is unnecessary. If the Indian Government were to implement the United Nations resolutions of 1947, 1948 and 1960 and give the people of Jammu and Kashmir the right to determine their own future, and if those people then determined their own future, perhaps the Indian Government would have a just case for bringing such a treaty to the British Government and asking the House to approve it. Until the Indian Government do that, and until they clean up their human rights record, I am not prepared to support the treaty.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) said about Kashmir and the Punjab. The treaty is not needed, because an acceptable one is already in place, linking this country with the other Commonwealth countries. The Government have been conned by the Indian Government, who see British recognition of the treaty as a way of saying to the rest of the world, "Britain recognises our problems and supports us." My hon. Friend the Minister gave the game away when he referred to terrorists being sent back to India. He slipped, so he then said that he meant potential terrorists. He made the slip and it is on the record. He can wriggle and twist, but it is there for all to see.
India is referred to as the largest democracy in the world. I call it the biggest hypocrisy in the world. It talks about democracy while it practises state terrorism. It is amazing that, when President Clinton recently launched a missile attack against Iraq, our Prime Minister rightly said that Britain was opposed to state terrorism and supported Clinton. Why on earth is my right hon. Friend, through this treaty and by meeting India's representatives, supporting India's state terrorism, which is even worse than that in Iraq?
Because Kate Adie does not go to the Punjab, there are no headlines telling us about India's state terrorism. She goes to Bosnia, so Bosnia becomes a major international issue. Nothing is heard about the Punjab and the suppression of human rights in India, because the media do not want to go there. Like colleagues on both sides of the House, I have tried to get the media to raise the issue, but they do not want to know, because it is not a major issue. Of course it is not a major issue, because the media do not want to make it one and because of the so-called wonderful, friendly relationship between our Government and the Indian Government.
We are supposed to believe that there have been new moves to allow human rights organisations to operate in India. I have tried six times to get a visa to go to India and the Punjab. The Indian high commissioner does not even have the decency to reply. He answers my letters on any

other matters, but will he let me go to India? No. I offered him a deal, both on the radio and in writing. I said, "Let me go. If my Sikhs are telling me lies about the suppression, murder and rape of people in the Punjab, I will come back and call them liars. But if they are telling the truth and the Indian Government are lying, I will come back and say that." "Oh no," they said, "we can't do a deal like that." Of course not—the deal was too fair.
The Indian Government know that they are liars and that they are misleading people. They know that my Sikhs and the Sikhs and Kashmiris throughout this country are telling the truth about what has happened to their relatives. The Indian Government do not want to know. I say to them, "If you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding something?" Their abuse of human rights makes the abuse in Iraq pale into insignificance, and it has been going on for a damned sight longer—since 1984.
Other hon. Members have said that Kashmir has a right to self-determination; so does the Punjab. There is nothing wrong with fighting for that cause, provided that it is done in a reasonable way. I accept that a handful of terrorists are making it bad for the genuine people who want self-determination, but we must put that aside and ask whether there is a cause and a justification. The answer is yes, there is a justification—and I am sick and tired of telling my Government that there is. This is my fourth speech on the issue in three or four years. My Government do not want to know because of their damned cosy relationship with the Indian Government.
Some hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), belong to the curry club. They pop off to India every other week, have a dose of curry and chips and come back saying that India is a wonderful place. I just know that my hon. Friend will say that when he speaks in a minute or two.
The Government should now take three steps. The first is not to sign the treaty until there is clear, practical evidence from the Indian Government that they are beginning to listen to us. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is a wonderful friend of the Indian Government. They can do nothing wrong. He said to me, "Terry, those people are all terrorists, you know." He virtually implied that anyone who wears a turban is a terrorist.
That is the view of the Foreign Office, which never does anything in the British interest unless it coincides with the Foreign Office interest. If it does not, the Foreign Office interest comes first. I say to my hon. Friends—if I can call them that tonight—on the Front Bench that the treaty must not be signed until we get guarantees and evidence of good will by the Indian Government.
Secondly, if we do not get those guarantees, we should cut off overseas aid to India—£104 million of taxpayers' money goes to that dreadful regime so that it can suppress decent people going about their business in the Punjab and Kashmir.
Finally, if the Indian Government do not learn from that lesson, we should cut off diplomatic relations and say that state terrorism, like individual terrorism, is not acceptable to the British Government. I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, "Stand up and be counted. Stop bending over backwards for the Indian Government. Stand by decency, by human rights and by the things that the British people and the British Government have always believed in."

Ms Liz Lynne: I agree wholeheartedly with all hon. Members who have expressed their opposition to the order, for which there is no necessity because extradition provisions are already in place. The Government are introducing this measure only to give a pat on the back to the Indian Government—to give them a seal of approval.
I have no idea how the Government can do that, when human rights abuses—especially in Indian-held Kashmir —are continuing on a daily basis. The Indian forces allegedly moved into one village and raped every woman there—from young girls to old women—and murdered the young men. To give such a regime a pat on the back is absolutely horrendous.
Human rights abuses are being committed thoughout Indian-held Kashmir. The Indian Government are totally opposed to the international covenant on civil and political rights, which they signed and to which they committed themselves—but to which they do not adhere.
Article 3 of the Geneva convention says that the wounded and sick should be collected and cared for, but Asia Watch has already reported a number of cases in which sick people—even those on life support machines —have been arrested and taken into custody.
The Indian Government do not allow the International Red Cross to give aid, and so much for their assurance that Amnesty International will be allowed to enter the area. Unless Amnesty International is able to monitor the situation and to move freely around the entire country, I for one shall not believe the Indian Government's reassurances. According to official estimates alone, 7,000 people have died, but I believe that the true figure is nearer 22,000.
Time and time again, the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir has been refused permission to enter Indian-held Kashmir. The Indian Government should now bow to pressure from right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, but our Government are giving the Indian Government a pat on the back because they want more trade contracts with India. We should say no to any new extradition treaty.
At a meeting with the former Home Secretary, I asked the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) whether there had ever been an occasion in the past few years when, under the existing treaty, the Indian Government could not have extradited someone from this country. He said that no such case came to mind. If that is so, why is a new extradition treaty needed? The order merely gives a seal of approval to the Indian Government, and we should reject it.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I declare an interest in that for the past 22 years I have served as an officer of the all-party Indo-British parliamentary group—first as secretary, then as vice-chairman and chairman. I may tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that I have never been served with curry and chips. I do not know whether that is what they eat in Hayes and Harlington.
It is the purpose of the Indo-British parliamentary group to uphold good relations with India—that is, with the whole of India and with all the peoples of every province throughout that republic.
The heading to this business in the Order Paper is:
Prevention and supression of terrorism".
The House should never sanction or condone terrorism or terrorists from any country or in any part of the world. The terrorist is the most vicious type of criminal. He cares nothing for the sanctity of human life, the victim or the victim's family, however innocent they may be. He tries by bomb or bullet to achieve political objectives that he cannot achieve through the ballot box.
The terrorist is therefore the enemy of free democracy, which is a cherished ideal both in India and Britain. He is the enemy of human rights, because the most important human right is the right to stay alive. There has been little mention so far in this debate of the human rights of the terroist's victims.
We should never give any quarter or safe haven to any terrorist, wherever he may come from.

Mr. Watts: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that people who have committed terrorist crimes could not be extradited under the existing arrangements? How can that be squared with the former Home Secretary's comment that he could not recall any case in which extradition was sought but could not be obtained under the existing arrangements?

Mr. Jessel: That is the whole point. Extradition exists for other types of crime, but does not work in respect of terrorism. If a terrorist says that he has a political motive, he is not extradited. The purpose of this measure is to catch suspected terrorists, bring them to justice and put them out of harm's way. If that is right within any free democracy, it must be right between free democracies—and that means extradition.
I asked the Library which crimes that would apply to, and the Library provided me with a much longer list than that read out by my hon. Friend the Minister. According to that information,
For the purposes of this Treaty the following offences shall not be regarded as offences of a political character.
It goes on to mention the unlawful seizure of aircraft, acts against the safety of civil aviation, taking of hostages, offences against diplomatic agents, murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the causing of an explosion likely to endanger life, the making or possession of an explosive substance by a person who intends to endanger life or cause serious damage to property, the possession of a firearm or ammunition by a person who intends either himself or through another person to endanger life, the use of firearms, damaging property with intent to endanger life, kidnapping, abduction, false imprisonment or unlawful detention and incitement to murder.
Anyone who commits any of those acts ought to be brought to justice, whether it is within a country or whether it entails the crossing of a boundary and thus requires extradition. It is absurd that the situation has been allowed to continue for so long without extradition. The order should be approved, and approved quickly.

Mr. Max Madden: While the Minister was telling us about his confidence in the Indian judicial system, I was recalling my remarkable visit in 1990 to Amritsar high security prison in the Punjab. I was told before I entered that I would find no one there under 18; in the event, I met 500 prisoners—they were arranged in a


circle under the noonday sun, which was extremely hot even in March—among whom were half a dozen young men under 18. The youngest was 12. I also found a man who had been in the prison for six years. He had been released at the end of each six months, re-arrested at the entrance to the prison and re-imprisoned. In India, it is called the "revolving door" judicial policy.
At present, 50,000 people are in Indian prisons without trial. In 1992, the Government issued an official brief which said:
The violence in Punjab has had a profound and damaging effect on the lives of Sikhs and others. The Indian Government admit that human rights violations against innocent civilians, including many Sikhs have occurred. The British Government have regularly expressed concern about the situation in Punjab.
On 17 July, in The Guardian, John Rettie wrote—referring to Kashmir, which I also visited in 1990 —
But the rule of law does not exist—the Indian security forces simply ignore the courts—and to an outsider the valley feels like an occupied country. Delhi contends that the Kashmiri militant groups enjoy no popular support except what they enforce by 'fear of the gun'. This is inconceivable. No insurgency could last so long or be so effective without widespread popular sympathy. The sense of alienation from India among Kashmiris is overwhelming.
My hon. Friends and many Conservative Members have testified to that point of view.
I believe that the treaty is wholly unnecessary. To be implemented, it will require the approval of both Houses. I have no doubt that the payroll vote will ensure that the order is approved tonight, but the other place will presumably consider whether to approve it in the autumn.
I challenge the Indian Government, between now and the autumn, to give us some confidence in their determination to combat the gross human rights violations taking place, and to allow Amnesty International, the International Red Cross and Asia Watch free access to all parts of India, especially the Punjab, Kashmir and Assam, so that they can freely investigate the catalogue of gross human rights violations reported in all those states. If the Indian Government were prepared to do that immediately, that would go a considerable way towards dispelling the concern about the situation in which the treaty is being agreed.
No doubt the Indian Government desperately desire the treaty as a political weapon. They will be able to say to Indians in India and to the international community,. "Look here, we would not have this treaty unless the British Government agreed with us that our terrorist problem is almost unique." They will even be able to go further and say that, by agreeing the extradition treaty, the British Government not only recognise their terrorist problem but endorse their anti-terrorist policy and give a seal of approval to the methods and tactics that they use to combat terrorism.
That is a dangerous signal for this country to send, at a time when our Prime Minister tells us that good government and the observance of human rights are priorities for his Administration. Like other hon. Members, I attended the Indian parliamentary group meeting on Monday, which was addressed by the Prime Minister. He spent all his time emphasising the benefits of investment, and of trade and business with India. He did not utter a single word about the gross abuse of human rights in India. That was a remarkable omission.

Mr. Corbyn: Did my hon. Friend get an inkling from the Prime Minister's talk that there had been any linkage between the order which we are being asked to approve and the enormous volume of arms sales now being made to India? Those arms could, of course, be used in both the Punjab and Kashmir.

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that the Prime Minister made no such reference, but clearly it is well known to all of us that a major part of the trade between Britain and India consists of armaments and that the second biggest item in the Indian budget is defence.
Many other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall finish by saying that I believe that the treaty represents a major political blunder. We should not have agreed to it unless there had been a dramatic improvement in the human rights situation in India. I hope that the Government will insist that India take positive action. There are numerous cases, many of which I have referred—

Mr. Heppell: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are in danger of endorsing a treaty even though democracy has effectively broken down in parts of India, such as Kashmir, where there have been no elections since 1990 and there are no plans for any elections on a local, regional or national basis? The judicial system, too, has broken down altogether. Martial law effectively exists in many parts of India.

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is right.
I also hope that the Minister will give us some information about the conditions for those against whom an extradition application is made. Will the person be held in custody in the United Kingdom? Will he or she be subject to strict bail and reporting conditions?
The agreement on terrorist funding which has also been made adds to the powers which already exist. There are seven pieces of legislation which give the authorities powers to investigate financial holdings. Will the police be encouraged to undertake inquiries into the financial affairs of Gudwaras and other United Kingdom-based Indian organisations because it creates an environment of intimidation and harassment?

Mr. Jessel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Madden: The hon. Gentleman has spoken already and I am about to conclude.
It is quite wrong for the treaty to be approved at this time. It is saying to many people in Britain that we are equating all turbans with terrorism. That has been the victory of Indian propaganda.
I have to say, particularly to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), whom I respect completely, that the mother and father of terrorism is state terrorism. State terrorism, suppression and repression breed militancy and terrorism. Therefore, it is in the interests of the Indian Government to ensure that human rights abuses are not perpetrated, particularly by Indian security forces.
I hope that that message will be given firmly by the British Government. We have had enough of fine words and expressions of concern. Before we give approval to such treaties, we want positive and immediate action from the Government of India to combat the gross human rights violations which are taking place in many parts of India.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We are debating emotive issues. I am aware, and have been for some time, of hon. Members' concerns about human rights in India. I have reflected them in my dealings as the Minister responsible for our relations with the Indian Republic and explained hon. Members' concerns to Indian Ministers and to the contacts I have. I have added that the Kashmir, Punjab and Sikh problems are legitimate subjects for debate in the United Kingdom because they affect the lives of United Kingdom citizens.
I know that it is wrong to refer by name to individuals in the Gallery, but one may do so collectively and we are all aware that this debate is being watched and listened to and will be read about by a large number of British citizens.
However, we must consider the offences that we are talking about. Members of the Jammu and Kashmir liberation front abducted and later assassinated the assistant Indian high commissioner in Birmingham in February 1984. Six extremists were later convicted and gaoled in the United Kingdom for his murder. The Sikh militant, Paramjit Singh Sidhu, was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and sentenced to 11 years after conviction on an explosives charge in 1990. Other Sikh militants were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment on conspiracy charges in July 1991. There have been several assassination attempts in Britain against prominent Sikh moderates. That is the British situation, but let us consider some of the international problems.
In 1985, Canadian-based Sikh militants caused a mid-air explosion on an Air India flight from Toronto to London; 329 people were killed. There was a related bomb at Tokyo airport which killed two airport staff. Those are some of the problems that we will be facing. Canada has concluded a similar extradition agreement with the Republic of India.

Mr. Richard Caborn: Have any perpretrators of those acts been brought to justice without this extradition treaty?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The purpose of this extradition agreement is for the House and the Government to say that, in such cases, it would be an outrage in this day and age for people to say that they acted with political intentions and therefore should avoid extradition and trial for alleged offences of that magnitude. The sort of offences about which we are talking—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) referred to this—must be clarified. We are not talking about trivial offences—far from it. We are talking about offences involving hijacking, taking hostages, serious crimes of violence, murder, manslaughter, serious assaults, kidnapping, explosives, firearms offences and financing of terrorism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) has strong views on this subject. We have often discussed those views privately—we often discuss things privately. Can he say that it is right that the argument that such offences were politically induced should be available in this day and age, when air travel is so easy and so available, which is what we are talking about?

Mr. Watts: Is my hon. Friend arguing that, in such cases, the defence of political purpose has been used successfully in a British court to resist an attempt by the Indian Government to obtain extradition? In his earlier remarks, has he not recited a number of instances of crimes committed in the United Kingdom where people have been properly convicted and punished by the courts? What is his argument for the need for this repulsive treaty?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Those crimes were committed in the United Kingdom. The treaty is mutual. There will be mutual recognition of rights of extradition—it works both ways.
It is right that the House should be so concerned about the protection of individuals. First, the matter must be considered by a British Home Office Minister. He must make a decision as to whether it is appropriate for the case to go to the Bow Street magistrates court. The decision of that court is appealable. The matter must then be considered by the Home Secretary, whose decision is open to judicial review. Indeed, the first decision of the Minister is open to judicial review if any applicant wishes to appeal. The Home Secretary must be satisfied that all the matters have been appropriately considered.

Mr. Terry Davis: How cart people of Kashmir origin in the United Kingdom have any confidence in assurances of scrutiny from a Government who deported a Kashmir leader, Mr. Amanullah Khan, after he was twice acquitted of all charges by British courts?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the conduct of Ministers, he should remember that the Bow Street magistrates court must consider the matter. Any decision is appealable on a writ of habeas corpus. The Minister's first and second decisions are subject to the process of judicial review. Ministerial decisions can be considered up to four times by a British court.
Hon. Members have expressed their concerns dramatically and extensively. It is fortuitous that this debate should be this week, because next Monday, the Indian Parliament is commencing its committee on legislation to set up an independent Indian human rights commission. It is good timing to have the debate today. I have no doubt that the views expressed by hon. Members will be noted by the Indian high commission in London, and that copies of the Official Report will be made available to parliamentarians in India. I defy hon. Members to assert that there are not parliamentarians in India who take human rights interests strongly to heart and express concern about them.
I wish to reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about access to India for human rights organisations and the signs in recent days of the Indian Government modifying and changing their policy in that regard. It has been one of my tasks to urge the Government of India to allow access to international human rights organisations and other groups. Therefore, I am particularly pleased by their recent statement on the issue.

Ms Joan Walley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I may, I shall make clear what the Indian Government said and my views on it; then, if there is time, I will give way.
It may be helpful if I read out the precise passage. In a statement, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs said:
In furtherance of the earlier initiatives, Government has now decided to allow certain human rights organisations to visit India to see for themselves how human rights safeguards operate in various parts of the country.
Hon Members will dispute some of the phraseology in that statement, but it clearly says "India" and does not exclude any part of India. It simply states that India will be open to human rights organisations. I hope, and I shall certainly press, that it will not be too long before Amnesty International and other human rights organisations may be able to visit Kashmir and all parts of India to carry out investigations that they may legitimately seek to follow.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 38.

Division No. 357]
[11.42 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cran, James


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dykes, Hugh


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Bates, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Fabricant, Michael


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Brandreth, Gyles
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gallie, Phil


Burns, Simon
Gillan, Cheryl


Burt, Alistair
Gorst, John


Butler, Peter
Greenway, John (Ftyedale)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Coe, Sebastian
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael





Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Legg, Barry
Speed, Sir Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lightbown, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Whittingdale, John


Patnick, Irvine
Willetts, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wood, Timothy


Pickles, Eric



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Sydney Chapman and Timothy Kirkhope.


Richards, Rod



Riddick, Graham





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry
Mahon, Alice


Cann, Jamie
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Cohen, Harry
Pike, Peter L.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Powell, William (Corby)


Cousins, Jim
Purchase, Ken


Cox, Tom
Rendel, David


Cryer, Bob
Rooney, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Skinner, Dennis


Dicks, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


George, Bruce
Spellar, John


Gerrard, Neil
Turner, Dennis


Godsiff, Roger
Waller, Gary


Graham, Thomas
Walley, Joan


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Watts, John


Hardy, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Heppell, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Leighton, Ron
Mr. Max Madden and Ms Liz Lynne.


Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (Application of Provisions) (India) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices)

Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move,
That the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
At this comparatively late hour, I need not detain the House too long in advocating the measure. It is both reasonable and desirable and, for the Church of England in its official councils, quite uncontroversial. The measure received final approval in the General Synod last year—it was unanimously approved in all three Houses.
That is to say that no bishop, no clergyman and no layman voted against it. The voting figures are on page 7 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report now before the House, if anyone wants to look at them.
I have stressed the unusual unanimity because the measure touches on sensitive issues in the life of the Church of England. It deals with cases in which a major problem arises in a parish not because of any grave misconduct on the part of the rector or vicar—the Church of England has separate disciplinary procedures for dealing with that contingency—but because the rector or vicar has a serious health problem or there is a serious breakdown in the relationship between him and the parishioners.
In such cases, where the work of a parish church cannot go forward effectively, some sort of action has to be taken to resolve the problem. The synod attempted to set up a mechanism for doing that in the parent of the present measure as long ago as 1977. The 1977 measure laid down a carefully formulated procedure and provided for a judicial tribunal to investigate the breakdown and recommend what should be done to resolve it. The earlier measure envisaged the possibility, as a last resort, of recommending that the rector or vicar should be required to leave the parish. Hence my reference to the sensitivity of the matter that we are considering tonight.
However, the original 1977 measure, like other attempts to tackle difficult and sensitive problems which have not been dealt with in a formal way before, was found to have some shortcomings. Hence the amendment measure that we are considering tonight, which seeks to remedy the earlier defects. I shall give just a few examples.
The earlier measure proved unsatisfactory on compensation, about which I shall say a few words presently. Above all, the 1977 measure did not lay sufficient emphasis on seeking to secure a preliminary reconciliation between the rector or vicar and the parishioners in cases where the relationship between them had broken down and before invoking more formal judicial procedures. That shortcoming is the first matter which the amending measure before us tonight seeks to remedy.
The amending measure provides that before any formal legal process is set in motion, there should be a carefully structured reconciliation process following a code of practice laid down by the House of Bishops. The bishops have already published a draft of the code, which is set out in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report before the House tonight but which the bishops have expanded a little to take on board some of the suggestions made by our colleagues in the House who are members of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
Among other things, the code provides for a third party who is acceptable to both sides, so to speak, to act as a conciliator, and for the parties to have a trial period of working together, where that seems both feasible and desirable. Only after that conciliation has failed can the more formal tribunal procedure, with various penalties up to enforced resignation, be invoked. Then the procedure can be invoked only if the relevant bishop approves—that is, it is at his discretion. The penalties recommended by the tribunal can in turn be imposed only if the bishop, at his discretion, authorises it.
The measure improves the procedure under the 1977 legislation in several further important ways. One example is that, in ill-health or disability cases, the tribunal will now have power to direct that the rector or vicar involved should have a proper medical examination and to draw the appropriate inferences if he refuses. Another example is that, in cases of the breakdown of the relationship between the rector or vicar and parishioners, it will now be possible to abort or withdraw the formal proceedings, even after they have started, if there is any hope of more informal reconciliation procedures taking effect. Under the 1977 measure, once a procedure had reached a certain stage, the only way to stop it was the resignation of the rector or vicar. To that extent, we have made things very much more flexible and sensitive.
Three points caused some concern or dissent among a minority of our colleagues on the Ecclesiastical Committee. First, some colleagues—including, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans)—thought that the Church of England should change to a system more like the law on unfair dismissal which applies to secular employment, and that the clergy should have clear performance criteria with dismissal as the penalty if they fail to meet those objective requirements.
I concede that it is important that everything possible be done to help the clergy to work effectively, and to work to objective standards if possible. Only a few days ago, the General Synod passed a motion asking the bishops to implement a system of regular review and work development for all clergy, and a group has been set up to examine the terms and conditions of service which might apply to them. However, most hon. Members will agree that the work that a clergyman does is of a special kind, and depends for its effectiveness on the quality of his relationship with his parishioners.
The parishioners are not employees of the Church; they are partners, with the clergy, in carrying forward the Church's mission. Thus, cases where the relationship breaks down are not on all fours with cases where an employee is dismissed. What is needed is a procedure for putting a disrupted relationship back on its feet, if possible. It is only as a very last resort that it should be deemed irreparable and the clergyman concerned required by the bishop to leave the parish.
One or two colleagues on the Committee were concerned about the compensation provisions in the measure. When a vicar or rector has resigned on grounds of ill health, or has been required to resign on those grounds, he receives the same pension and other benefits as any other member of the clergy who retires owing to ill health. The measure makes no change in that respect.
The 1977 measure also provided for very generous compensation in cases of a serious breakdown of relationships—so generous that many dioceses could not afford it, and clergy who received it had no incentive to


find other work. That was unsatisfactory, because it was inconceivable that a clergyman would be removed from office under the measure on grounds of a breakdown in the relationship with his parishioners unless there had been some fault or failure on his part.
The amending measure sets out to strike a balance between treating vicars and rectors justly and the wider interests of the Church of England and of the lay people who contribute to its finances. It does so by providing that the rector or vicar and the diocese agree whatever compensation terms they wish. We would certainly encourage dioceses to be generous if the clergyman concerned had special needs—for instance, a need for retraining.

Mr. Quentin Davies: My right hon. Friend says that it is inconceivable that the relationship would break down unless there had been some fault or failure on the part of the incumbent. Could it not break down because of a dispute over some theological point which could not easily be resolved but which could hardly fairly be described as resulting from fault or failure on the part of the incumbent?

Mr. Alison: I shall come to that later, when I describe how the measure defines such breakdowns in relationships.
The measure lays down that if the parties fail to agree the incumbent should be provided with reasonable compensation in the form of financial support and reasonable help with housing costs. The details are spelt out in schedule 2 to the measure. The word "reasonable" may seem to beg a question, but the clergy in the Synod, who are the category primarily affected, as well as all the other categories in the Synod, accepted that the schedule 2 formula for compensation struck a fair balance between the interests of all concerned. They did not vote against it. The unanimity of the vote, including that of the clergy, is a reflection of the fact that it was felt that the compensation provisions were reasonable.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), a number of our colleagues on the Ecclesiastical Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth may have been among them—felt that the new definition of a serious breakdown in pastoral relationships, which appears in the new measure, was too wide and could leave almost any rector or vicar open to being proceeded against, perhaps by some local crank.
The original 1977 legislation contained no definition at all, which made it difficult to interpret. The Synod has now tightened matters considerably by providing that the provisions on the breakdown of a relationship will apply only where the situation is impeding the whole mission of the Church of England in the parish. The legislation therefore cannot be invoked because of a trivial dispute or a disagreement between the rector or vicar and a small minority of the parishioners.
The actual trigger mechanism is formulated under paragraph 10 of the measure and refers to the impeding
of the whole mission of the Church of England, pastoral, evangelistic, social and ecumenical
in the parish in question. Nothing trivial or secondary would be caught by it. Matters relating to theology or doctrine could not have the effect of impeding that whole mission in such a way as to be caught by the definitition.

That definition relates to the kind of breakdown which occurs when the clergyman is seriously ill or mentally disturbed. It goes far too wide for a mere theological dispute to trigger the judicial procedures involved.
The new definition also highlights the real purpose of the measure, which is to further, positively and constructively, the mission of the Church of England in the parishes. The Synod wholeheartedly accepted it as something which would help to achieve that aim. I hope that the House will add its support to the Synod by supporting the measure.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not need to speak for long, because the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has spelt out to the House the flexible nature of the measure and its infinitely superior quality in comparison with that of 1977. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House that the 1977 measure did not command the same support and unanimity in the Synod as that shown for the new measure.
Hon. Members may believe that matters concerning the Church should not be considered in the Chamber. While the Church is established, however, Parliament has the obligation to consider such matters.
We should respect the measure because it provides for fair dealings for members of the clergy. Conservative Members may not share my opinion and that of my hon. Friends that the role of the good priest in many parishes is far more stressful than it has ever been. When society is dominated by greed, and when it is entirely materialistic in its political evaluation, the stress facing the good priest is enormous.
The majority of people may never give much thought to the priest or to the Church, but at times of crisis, both individual and community, the Church is seen as relevant and the priest must be there. Many of our priests are readily available. They share grief and anxiety. They share the very real economic and social burdens that affect the people in their pastoral charge.
The strain on many of the clergy can be enormous. It is perfectly appropriate for the House to ensure that clergy who suffer a breakdown of health as a result of being at the interface of stress within their parishes should be treated decently. I hope that the House will approve the measure for that reason.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may recall, I was brought up in nonconformity. I recall that, on occasions, my parents were very angry when they returned home from chapel business meetings. It sometimes seemed that the qualities of Christian charity were not always readily exhibited. In the operation of the management of the established Church, I suppose that sometimes personal animosities and irritations are taken to such an excessive point that an outside influence seeking to pour oil on troubled waters would be desirable.
I think that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) is a member of the legal profession. He may be much more well disposed to bureaucracy than I am. He may well wish to see a tightly bureaucratic, structured arrangement that may well be very profitable or more interesting to members of the legal profession than to the rest of the laity serving the Church.

Mr. Roger Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hardy: I will give way in a moment.
When we deal with human relationships in our surgeries, many of us would not dream of advising constituents to go off and consult their legal advisers. We would not do that for many reasons, not least because of the cost. I would prefer a more flexible arrangement. The quality of this measure is one of flexibility and reasonable generosity.
I hope that the hon. Member for Monmouth shares my view that there is a place for flexibility rather than for the more bureaucratic approach which, I suspect, he may favour rather more than I do.

Mr. Evans: Surely the hon. Gentleman has, at his surgery, advised people who have been unfairly dismissed that the way to get justice and fairness is to go to an industrial tribunal? Why should we treat the clergy of the Church of England to a much lower standard and give them much less protection than ordinary employees and trade unionists who have been unfairly dismissed? That is the injustice of this proposal.

Mr. Hardy: One would hope that no one employed by the Church, as clergy or in any other capacity, would be treated in the way that many of my constituents have been treated when they have claimed unfair dismissal.
One is entitled to expect the Church to conduct itself in a way that would avoid that degree of confrontation, which would not serve the Church or the person who appeals to the tribunal well. I do not believe that there is a need for such confrontation. If that arrangement were made, it would be a confession that the Church was incapable of applying Christian practice and approaches. For that reason, I would not like to see the Church in that position. That is why I could not possibly support the approach that the hon. Member for Monmouth appears to advocate.
We must make it clear in the House that we recognise the stress and demands placed on the conscientious clergyman. Such a clergyman would not wish to expose the Church to the attention that would follow a case for unfair dismissal. The hon. Member for Monmouth may have acted for clients in those tribunals. He will be aware that pretty sordid tales often appear in the media after such cases. I do not think that the human relationships involved are best dealt with in such a tribunal.
The structures that the right hon. Member for Selby has presented are admirable. They are far better than the 1976 measure, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave. We have a duty to ensure that the clergy serving the Church, while it is an established organisation, should be treated as decently as the measure proposes. I certainly trust that the measure will be approved.

Mr. Roger Evans: The speech of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was powerful, persuasive; humane and trusting of the Church of England. I regret to say, from my professional experience as a member of the Bar advising clergymen in difficulties, that I have seen grossly unchristian behaviour. I have seen the behaviour of Mr Gradgrind—exactly the kind of conduct from which our system of industrial tribunals protects workmen and employees. If a Conservative Member proposed to abolish protection from unfair dismissal, Opposition Members would be outraged. This

proposal weakens the position of an incumbent clergyman and puts him in a worse position than an employee. That is startling and wrong. It is unjust and unworkable.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman should consider that the House of Clergy did not provide a single vote against the measure. When considering the same arrangements in the early 1970s, the House of Clergy managed to secure a majority of six. That suggests that, in the intervening years, the Church has produced a much more acceptable arrangement. If the clergy who might be the hon. Gentleman's clients are prepared to vote for the measure, it appears that the hon. Gentleman is taking his representations too zealously.

Mr. Evans: I am afraid that that is not a fair observation. The point at stake is that there might be a touch of unworldliness in debates in the Synod. The English Clergy Association is certainly concerned about these matters now that it has had a chance to examine them.
The first difficulty with the proposals is simply that the 1977 measure upon which they are based and are meant to reform has not worked. The Legislative Committee described it in quite brutal terms in its remarks to the Ecclesiastical Committee: the 1977 measure has
major defects in practice… It was found to be complicated, difficult, and very expensive to operate and to result in serious adverse publicity for the Church.
Upon questioning, we discovered that it has been used only twice since 1977. Synod debated it in 1981, because there was extreme disquiet about it. In fact, the arrangements of the measure which we are seeking to amend have not been used, because the system is fatally and completely flawed.
I shall go back to basic principals. Vicars and rectors, who are still the great majority of Anglican clergymen, hold a freehold office until retirement. They can ordinarily be removed only for a proven criminal ecclesiastical case proved in court. That very rarely happens. The late Mr. Michael Bland, hon. Members might recall, succeeded as a result of the effects of Lord Howe of Aberavon. Apart from that case and one or two unhappy incidents of adultery, proven cases of clerical misconduct have been noted for their absence.
There are situations—this is what the 1977 measure was directed at—in which a parson's church congregation dwindles, the quota is not paid, the parochial church council is at war with itself, and the parishioners are not talking. Something must be done as a practical matter to deal with that, as a matter of sense and justice. If we were running a voluntary organisation or a political party and things went backward to that extent, we would want to see what could be done.
The Church of England's solution in 1977 was to set up a fudge. We are talking about the reform of a fudge. There are two vital features of the 1977 measure. The first was irretrievable pastoral breakdown. What on earth does that garbage mean? It is taken from the no-fault divorce phraseology of the statute—irretrievable breakdown of marriage—and it means what anybody wants it to mean. This was a basic, fundamental problem of definition.
The second fault was that, if one was dispossessed and deprived under the 1977 measure, one was compensated for one's whole loss. That was a job for life until death. It was large and generous compensation, much better than a workman would get.
What happened? The Church of England discovered that, in the two cases where proceedings were brought under the 1977 measure, they were either wholly embarrassing and the pastoral inquiry a matter of scandal for the popular press, or, if the parson was actually deprived, the cost was appalling and prodigious. So be it, the thing failed.
What are we to do now? One might have thought that the Church of England would see fit to reconsider the basic premise of the 1977 measure and produce some new scheme. It might have come to Parliament saying that the whole system was wrong, which might have been rather controversial. It might have come to us and said that parsons should hold their office only for a limited number of years. It might have said that there should be performance criteria or standards that they should observe —.[Interruption.] We can assess, to some extent, whether a church is emptying, the quota not being paid and the funds not being raised. There must be fairness.
If there is a problem, there must be a system by which the people concerned can be removed and compensation should be adjusted according to the degree of fault. A blameless parson, or one who is only partly to blame, should get much more than one who is wholly at fault. That is what an industrial tribunal decides—it adjusts the compensation according to the contributory fault. That is the approach that the Church of England could have adopted.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There should be a minimum wage.

Mr. Evans: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the national minimum stipend is not very attractive. I suspect that it is rather less than the national average wage.
Instead of dealing with the problems, we are being asked to build on the 1977 measure. There are two striking and fundamental faults. I do not mind the extra ACAS-type provisions such as reconciliation and dealing with the sick, but the fundamentals of the proposals are as follows.
First, there is a new definition of "irretrievable pastoral breakdown", which my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) read out and which refers to
the whole mission of the Church of England, pastoral, evangelistic, social and ecumenical.
What on earth does that mean? Let us put it in the party political context. Would we want constituency associations of hon. Members to get rid of those who failed the whole mission of the Conservative party or the Labour party? We can see immediately how that sort of wild language could be twisted to the detriment of the person there at the moment. It is pliable language: it is not precise, fair and good legislation.
Is anyone saying that if there is a pastoral mission it is not always possible to find a cause—doctrinal disputes have already been mentioned—for gossip against the vicar if someone disapproves of the sermon, for whatever reason? Are we really intending to create a position in which troublemakers can cause difficulty in the parish and have the parson removed simply by citing a breakdown of pastoral relationships? That cannot be just or fair.
If I were to be very rude to those who drafted the measure before us, I would say that the new section 19A

is almost the equivalent of charging somebody with un-Anglican activities. It is as bad as the activities of the late Senator McCarthy, and it is unworthy of legislation.
The second fundamental failure is that if a parson is deprived under these proposals, regardless of his fault or contribution to his deprivation, he gets very much reduced compensation. He gets a buy-out that is not conspicuously generous. Instead of the whole loss for the rest of his life, it is a basic award of one year at the minimum stipend and the next year at three quarters, if he is aged 49 and started at 25. There are resettlement and housing allowances.
Those are modest sums to give an almost blameless parson, who is turfed out of his home and loses his living and his professional respect.
There is a fundamental moral difficulty about which the code of conduct is remarkably coy. If the parson suffers because no one gets on with him, is he to blame or is he not?
The draft code says that it is not necessarily blameworthy, even if one is deprived of one's living. It is wholly unjust to give the same modest compensation to the man who has fallen out with the gossips in the parochial church council and the women's institute as to the mad, bad vicar who justly deserves to be removed.
In a different context, an industrial tribunal can apportion blame, decide contributory fault and reduce the compensation accordingly, fairly and in balance. We have known that system for years. My right hon. Friend asked whether it was wrong to apply the model of unfair dismissal, but I thought that that model would be particularly attractive to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who might have regarded it as an achievement in the history of the working man.
In another place, the Lord Bishop of St. Albans took the same point as my right hon. Friend. He said:
the work of a clergyman in a parish is a special kind of calling which takes special qualities and needs the active co-operation and support of parishioners. The parishioners themselves are not employees of the Church but partners with the clergy in carrying forward the Church's mission."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 1993; Vol. 584, c. 509.]
He went on to say that cases where the relationship breaks down are not on all fours with unfair dismissal.
Imagine yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the full-time paid secretary of a charity and you have volunteer workers with whom it is difficult to deal. Charities fall out like parishes. Party political agents in our constinuencies are full-time workers, and they are known to fall out with the volunteer side. But I say to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that many full-time charity workers do the same sort of job as an ordained clergymen, pursuing God's mission—but such people in secular employment are protected by the law of unfair dismissal. Why should parsons be treated any less well?
One cannot, as a private body or as a disestablished church, tear up arrangements such as the parson's freehold without an Act of Parliament. The Church of England enjoys a special, convenient legislative privilege of delegated legislation and the procedure that we are observing now.

Mr. Skinner: And it is wrong.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is wrong if provisions slip through in this fashion without the full examination that would occur at all stages if they were the subject of a proper Bill.

Mr. Skinner: I have often remained to hear measures affecting the Church of England debated, but the truth is that we should not debate the actions of the General Synod. There are many faiths in Britain, but for some reason or another Church of England measures come before the House late at night. Frankly, I do not think that we have any business discussing them. If the General Synod makes a decision, that is its business.

Mr. Evans: I am greateful for that wholly unsympathetic and unfair intervention. The hon. Gentleman does not care beyond a certain point about parsons' civil liberties and rights. He is interested only in his own constituents
—some of whom may be parsons.
Wherever the Methodists, Baptists or Congregationalists want to unify, alter their trusts or terms of contracts, or change the law, it is not a case of ignoring Parliament. They must come to Parliament and face the full difficulty of getting a Bill passed. The Church of England has a convenient system that benefits and assists the Church. But if matters are to be dealt with in that way, the highest standards of legal drafting for legislation must be observed, using systems that are fair, just and workable. At the same time, the Church of England in particular has a moral obligation to observe the highest standards towards those who serve it. It is wholly wrong for parsons to be treated in an unfair and unworkable way.
I do not usually use the language of civil liberties, which is not my cast of mind or the temper of my political prejudice. However, on whichever side of the House one may sit, this measure is either a back-door attack, in Tory terms, on the parson's freehold or, viewed through left-wing glasses, an attack on the civil liberties of parsons. These proposals are fatally flawed, and I invite the House to reject them.

Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) could not have presented more vividly, convincingly and perfectly the reason for which we want to try to exclude this kind of litigious, legalistic, confrontational, adversarial advocacy from the breakdown of relationships in a parish. Let us imagine, for instance, the parish of Bolsover, presided over by the rector, the Rev. Dennis Skinner. Believe it or riot, the rector has fallen out with his parishioners. What does he do? He gets hold of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth to defend him before a tribunal.
Can hon. Members think of anything more calculated to bring the Church of England into disrepute than a public row when a rector has fallen out with his parishioners in very sensitive and difficult circumstances, perhaps because he has lost his mental balance—[Interruptioni]—or perhaps, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) suggested, because he has had a nervous breakdown? There may be any number of reasons.
The rector then persuades my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth to defend him, in the style and with the legalistic approach that we observed earlier. That is precisely why we have introduced a Measure to exclude —I am trying to be kind to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth—the legalistic ranting that we have heard from him tonight, in the context of the provocation that the Rev. Dennis Skinner might have exercised on his unfortunate parishioners.
The Measure contains provision for flexibility, conciliation, compensation and moderate attempts at definition. We want to retain a fair, reasonable arrangement, unexposed to lawyers' jargon and a militant drive for the rights of the individual that is entirely inappropriate in this context. No wonder the House of Clergy did not raise a dissenting vote against the Measure. One might have thought that, with such advocacy, all its members would vote in favour of my hon. Friend's proposals, if there had been any merit in what he said; but there is not. He has demonstrated by his style tonight exactly what we are trying to avoid.
I urge my hon. Friend to accept that, following this good-humoured and important debate, he need not divide the House, which could cause a good many people a good deal of trouble. Will he accept that, although this has been a reasonable debate, the case for rejecting the Measure has not been made? I urge my hon. Friends to support it if we are forced into a Division.

Mr. Roger Evans: Section 7(5) of the report states:
At an enquiry under this Measure the parties may be represented by a barrister or solicitor.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend ignores the fact that the inquiry is at the discretion of the bishop. It may not happen at all if the bishop decides that it is not suitable —precisely to keep advocates, solicitors or barristers like my hon. Friend out of the court in such circumstances. My hon. Friend's point is not well taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 22nd July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall not later than Ten o'clock put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Section 7.— [Mr. Conway.]

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 26th July, Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall have effect as if for the words 'nine o'clock in the morning', in line 15, there were substituted the words 'eight o'clock in the morning'.—[Mr. Conway.]

Leather Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Peter Fry: At the commencement of the debate, I declare an interest in that, for some years, I have been the parliamentary adviser to the British Leather Confederation. The industry has been facing several problems—environmental problems and problems involving trade and raw materials. Tonight I shall concentrate on the last category—the deteriorating raw stock quality and the decline in animal welfare.
The United Kingdom tanning industry has an annual turnover of about £400 million, and has consistently exported a higher value of leather than it has imported. Last year, the industry had a balance of trade surplus of about £50 million, with total exports worth about £200 million. However, in order to survive and to enjoy that success the industry, like those in the rest of the European Community, has specialised in quality, performance, fashion and service to customers. To service that top sector of the market it needs a supply of good quality raw material, in the form of cattle hides and sheepskins.
Unfortunately, the quality of raw hides and skins from United Kingdom animals is deteriorating to an alarming extent. That is not unique to the United Kingdom, but I shall mention later a number of specific examples that demonstrate the ways in which hide and skin quality in this country is deteriorating.
The European Tanners Association, COTANCE, has produced a document on the subject, which has been submitted to the European Commission. It makes a number of important points, including the following. First, the leather industry is based on the processing of raw cattle hides and sheepskins, which are by-products of the meat and dairy industries. Secondly, because those are by-products, their quality is too often neglected by those involved in the production process. Thirdly, the quality of raw material for the leather industry is increasingly important. Finally, unnecessary damage to hides and skins causes an estimated loss to the EC economy of more than £500 million annually, of which about £50 million is lost in the United Kingdom.
Although that money is lost in the chain from farmer to tanner, and is therefore eventually reflected in prices paid, the financial impact on the farmer is indirect. That is because the market mechanism is imperfect. There is a market price for the live animal, and a separate market price for the hide or skin at the abattoir gate. Those markets are separately driven, and are linked only indirectly. Furthermore, the economic value of a hide or skin, reflecting the end use for which it is suitable, can be fully assessed only after several stages of the tanning process.
Damage to hides and skins takes place either while the animal is alive, on the farm or in transport, or in the abattoir. The main types of damage occur while the animal is still alive. In general terms, what is good for hide and skin quality is good for animal health and welfare. The major factors which affect the hide and skin quality are husbandry methods on the farm and regulations on animal welfare, animal health and meat hygiene.
There is concern in the trade that national regulations are being relaxed and that hide and skin quality is deteriorating and that affects the decline in animal health and welfare.
An important current example is the threefold increase in ectoparasite damage to sheep since the progressive relaxation and finally the abolition last year of compulsory sheep dipping. Not only is the deterioration of sheepskin quality a serious matter for the United Kingdom sheepskin tanning industry; it also provides objective evidence of what many in the industry suspected but could not measure: that there has been a substantial and worrying increase in the infestation of sheep. That in turn has serious animal welfare implications.
It is not overstating the case to stress that this could reach crisis proportions in the near future not only in terms of lost revenue, but also in the unacceptable suffering caused to the sheep population. Investigation by the British Leather Confederation is producing evidence to support that view. It is no wonder that its contentions are supported by organisations such as the Meat and Livestock Commission, the National Farmers Union, the National Sheep Association, the National Office of Animal Health, the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers and the British Wool Marketing Board. The concern of those and other organisations must be taken into account.
The current situation raises the following main issues. The increased number of outbreaks of sheep scab and the higher levels of infestation by other parasites is raising serious animal welfare implications in the national flock. It is a problem not only for the animals but also for the general public, for whom animal welfare is a major issue in their attitude to farming and meat consumption.
The growing animal welfare problem of increased infestation needs to be addressed by effective policing of flocks to ensure consistent implementation of existing regulations for improving animal welfare.
Apart from reducing animal growth rates, infestation also reduces the value of sheepskins causing a major financial loss to the United Kingdom. Throughout the chain from farmer to leather manufacturer, this is estimated to reach up to £20 million a year.
The nature of the markets for sheep and sheepskins is such that there can be no direct incentive to farmers to improve skin quality. The imperfect market mechanism cannot be used as an effective means of persuading farmers to dip sheep as in other countries such as New Zealand, where direct payments are made to farmers for skin quality.
The shortage of good-quality material is putting at serious risk the whole sheepskin tanning industry, which must sell to the quality fashion market if it is to survive. Even at today's relatively depressed prices, that section of the leather industry, with a turnover of £80 million per annum, exports of £70 million and directly employs about 1,000 people. It is the view of all sectors of the trade that the only effective means of addressing the situation is a return to some form of compulsory dipping along with notification of sheep scab outbreaks to give an objective measures.
I am pleased to note that the interested sectors of the sheepskin and leather trade are in discussion with officials of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about practical ways in which this might be achieved and leather industry is in discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry with regard to the threat to their sector.
I am only too well aware of the current controversy over organophosphorus dips, and so is the industry. There is no intention on my or the industry's part that farmers and workers should be exposed to undue danger that will affect their health. I understand the feelings of those who feel such dipping should be banned. I understand, and I feel that the whole picture should be made clear.
Effective control of ectoparasites relies upon the availability of suitable products. The OP dips at present have an important role in that. They are widely produced and used and have the benefit of being effective against the widest range of ectoparasites. No comparable alternatives exist. Any move to end the use of such products without the availability of an alternative with equivalent efficiency would further exacerbate the already worrying animal welfare problems.
Dips contain insecticides and need to be treated with respect. It is important that farmers involved in the dipping process follow the correct procedures and wear appropriate protective clothing. Safety trials have been conducted on the effect of dipping in accordance with correct procedures. It is important that any decisions roust be taken on a scientific basis, taking account of the full implications.
That is why the industry has made two suggestions. The first is that compulsory dipping should be reintroduced. Reinstatement of statutory control is considered most appropriate because it will ensure that most producers dipped at least once. However, it is recognised that policing of the dipping programme is a critical feature and neither the Government nor local authorities can provide the necessary resources at present.
Therefore, as a second option, it is suggested that if the Ministry cannot respond to the first suggestion, legislative controls should be introduced based on the phased-in introduction of more acceptable dipping treatments and the mounting of a national campaign to publicise and encourage voluntary control, possibly supported by a code of practice.
I turn briefly to the question of cattle hides. The quality of cattle hides is deteriorating. It is a Europewide problem but it has been particularly noted in the United Kingdom. It should be recorded that, while we have an overall surplus of raw hides, material for the top quality end uses must be imported from, for example, Scandinavia. United Kingdom tanners who sell to the top quality section of the market report that a decreasing proportion of their purchases of hides from United Kingdom sources can be used for the high-value outlets to which they sell. In 1991, only 50 per cent. could be used. A year later, it was reduced to 40 per cent., compared with an average of 65 per cent. of imported hides.
The main types of damage are, first, scratched hides from barbed wire and horn clipping. Scratches are aggravated, by ectoparasite infestations. For both animal welfare and economic reasons, there is a case for a ban on barbed wire as the only means of fencing farm animals, plus the compulsory dehorning of all calves.
Secondly, ectoparasites in cattle are a significant problem for hide quality. The ending of widespread treatment of cattle for such parasites has led to an increase in other parasites, especially lice. That is an animal husbandry and animal welfare issue at the farm level.
Thirdly, ringworm affects about five per cent. of cattle in the United Kingdom. It is a significant skin disease because it is transferable to man, so there is a case for making the vaccination of all cattle obligatory.
Fourthly, there is the problem of dung contamination. Dirty hides and skins raise not only quality problems for tanners but health, safety and environmental problems for other trades and industries. This is a problem in both the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Community. It is viewed primarily as an issue of hygiene in abattoirs and proper implementation of the rules for preventing dirty animals from entering the abattoir. There would seem to be a need for a payment method to farmers to be devised, which would ensure that cleaner animals arrive for slaughter.
The final matter to which I shall refer is the export of live animals. This is a further animal welfare issue because it is felt that there is a significant economic impact on the leather industry. At the same time, it affects the way in which animals are sent overseas and the number of them. There has been a rapidly increasing level of exports, especially of live sheep.
There is a feeling that, as we have moved to the single European market, there has also been a move to the lowest common denominator in terms of animal welfare controls as national regulations are relaxed or removed and EC controls are more relaxed or non-existent. This has an effect not only on animal welfare but on other sectors, including the hide, skin and leather trade. The relaxation of rules on transport times for animals has coincided with a rapid increase in the export of live sheep from the United Kingdom, mainly to France. During 1992, the total almost doubled to over 1.4 million. There are reports of further increases during 1993.
Exports on this scale need to be carefully monitored, to ensure that the animals are not subject to unnecessary suffering. I question whether that is taking place. It should be acknowledged that, although there may be some short-term commercial benefits to live sheep exports on this scale, it leads to a loss of added value within the United Kingdom and creates economic problems for downstream industries, including the hide, skin and leather trade.
To conclude, tonight I have attempted to highlight some problems being faced in just one sphere: raw material supply by the British leather industry. I know that discussions and negotiations are taking place with Ministry officials. All I am asking is that there should be a true recognition of the contribution of the industry to the British economy, that the Ministry will look in favour at least at some of its suggestions, and take positive steps to assist it to continue its high level of quality and exports.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) on identifying a subject on which he is an expert, as the House knows. It is of considerable importance to this country, and therefore to many hon. Members.
As my hon. Friend and the House will know, for centuries the leather and associated industries have made a substantial contribution to the economic well-being of this country. The leather industry now has a turnover of


some £400 million. The industry exports more than half of that to buyers throughout the world, and regularly makes a positive contribution to our balance of payments. Its products are of the highest quality and rightly attract premium prices in sophisticated and discerning markets such as the United States of America, France and Italy as well as the United Kingdom.
Today, tanning is no longer a parochial, craft-oriented business serving the local community, but a capital-intensive, technologically-driven industry trading its products across the world. British tanners face intense competition both at home and overseas. Inevitably, the United Kingdom industry has had to adapt and change to the new environment in which it must operate. The United Kingdom has not been alone in this. Throughout Europe, we have seen in recent years a substantial shrinkage in the tanning industry, both in employment in the sector and in the number of firms. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that probably two main worldwide factors are responsible for this.
The first is the shift of footwear and other leather manufacturing industries from the north to the south and from the west to the east. The transfer of activity has been driven largely by the relative cost of labour, in this as in so many other industries.
The second factor which has speeded the transfer of activity is the building up of considerable tanning capacity in countries which have traditionally been the suppliers of raw material—India, Pakistan, Brazil, the Argentine and others. I regret to say that in many cases—my hon. Friend is right to suggest this—the development of these new industries has been and continues to be supported by export bans on raw material and Government subsidies on investments and exports.
The comparative international disadvantages of high labour costs, and the increasing environmental requirements which European society now insists upon, have forced the leather industry to introduce a high degree of mechanisation into the production process. Another important feature to improve competitiveness has been the training of the work-force and the introduction of increased flexibility in production. However, my hon. Friend has correctly pointed out that the most important strategy has been the shift from the production of standard quality items to products with higher value added—in other words, concentrating on the top quality end of the market.
Clearly, an important element in this drive towards top quality production must be access to top quality raw material—that is the skins and hides. This is where the farming industry plays its part. I am extremely grateful to my honourable Friend for giving us such a clear analysis of the reasons why farmers should treat their sheep in order to control sheep scab and other parasitic conditions.
I should perhaps make it clear that I fully agree with my hon. Friend on the benefits of dipping sheep for scab. They are clear for all to see, and I would encourage all sheep farmers to dip their animals regularly, as well as to apply other appropriate anti-parasitic treatments.
I am equally grateful to the Meat and Livestock Commission, which has recently sent my Department a report that details its concerns about the effect of the removal of sheep scab controls on the quality of skins

supplied to the leather industry. The report has been prepared in conjunction with a number of interested bodies, including the British Leather Confederation. It makes many of the same points that have been made tonight, and we shall study it with great care and interest.
However, I have no doubts that simply encouraging farmers to dip and otherwise treat their sheep will not satisfy my hon. Friend, or the authors of the report. they would like the Government to go much further and regulate again for the compulsory dipping of sheep. That is a different matter altogether and one on which I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. Friend.
The purpose of compulsory national dipping was to control and eradicate sheep scab, particularly on premises where the existence of infestation had not been recognised. Compulsory national dipping, once or twice a year was an important part of the sheep scab controls since 1976.
However, 15 years later, in 1991, scab was still confirmed in 116 flocks, and 28 per cent. of farmers failed to co-operate by returning their dipping forms. This was no golden egg. The policy was not going to eradicate sheep scab. After widespread consultation, it was decided last year to remove the requirement compulsorily to dip.
I have heard nothing tonight that makes me think it was wrong to deregulated the sheep scab controls. As my hon. Friend knows, scab can be cured by the farmer simply and effectively by using a licensed medicinal product in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, combined with care in the purchase of replacement animals and management of his flock to prevent reinfestation. To reintroduce controls now would fly in the face of the Governmnent's deregulation policy.
Legislation is now used only as a last resort. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that there is no reason why diseases of sheep should be treated any differently from other policies, when there is a perfectly acceptable means at hand to control them.
Although I fully understand the concerns of the leather industry about the quality of its raw materials, it is for the marketplace, not Parliament to determine the quality of supply. I am sure that the leather industry would not want the Government to regulate its operations so that it was prevented from making what it saw as the right commercial decisions in the marketplace.
Farming is no different. We are firmly committed to trying to move away from unnecessary controls throughout British industry, and that applies as much to farming as to any other industry, in the land.
We have heard tonight about deterioration in the quality of skins supplied to the leather industry and the need for legislation because of failures in the market. I appreciate that the current structure of the industry makes it difficult for price signals to move back through the chain from the leather industry to the farmer, but that is something that the industry can and must sort out for itself.
The Government should not interfere to force the livestock industry to incur extra costs to improve the quality of skins if the livestock industry itself concludes, on commercial grounds, that the extra costs are not justified by the extra reward for the quality achieved. The remedy must lie in the leather industry improving the price signals that it sends to farmers, combined, if the industry chooses, with the sort of promotional campaign which the M LC told my officials in June that it was considering.
I would certainly be happy to consider with the British Leather Confederation, the Meat and Livestock Commission and other interested parties what practical action might be taken to encourage farmers to improve the quality of the raw material reaching the tanning industry. As my hon. Friend mentioned, I am pleased to say that discussions have already been initiated at official level.
My hon. Friend has also raised animal welfare as an area of concern, both because of the increased incidence of sheep scab, and the export of live animals. Although I cannot confirm or deny the number of new outbreaks of sheep scab since the disease is not longer notifiable, I can confirm that the Government take this, and all issues of animal welfare, extremely seriously.
We already have legislation which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or distress to farm livestock. We know that the sheep scab mite causes irritation and distress to affected animals. Prosecution action will be taken by the local authority, or the state veterinary service against any producers who create animal welfare problems by failing to treat infested sheep. But that is no different from the action that we would take for any other welfare problem caused by poor husbandry.
There is, as my hon. Friend rightly says, a strong market demand on the continent for British animals. Live exports alone were worth about £160 million in 1992. The choice between sending live animals or carcase meat is a matter for market forces, subject to the necessary welfare safeguards when live animals are transported. I note the points raised by my hon. Friend about animal transport, which we will, of course, bear in mind.
I am also fully aware of the concerns in some quarters about the possible effects of those dips which contain organophosphorous compounds, on the farmers using them. The House may be aware that, in March, following a request from the previous Minister, the independent Veterinary Products Committee gave careful consideration to whether a moratorium on the use of organophosphorous sheep dips should be introduced. At its meeting, the VPC took into account reports of increased outbreaks of sheep scab in formulating its advice to Ministers. The committee concluded that those dips should continue on the market during the summer period.
It made specific mention of the fact that, if sheep scab and blowfly strike were left untreated, serious welfare problems would follow. The VPC will be returning to the

subject of organophosphorous dips again in October, when it wishes to complete the review of products which is currently under way. Comments from the British Leather Confederation have been received, and those are being put to the VPC, along with all the other information that it will consider.
We are doing all we can to try to establish the facts —we want to be able to make an informed decision based on as much scientific evidence as possible. In the meantime, sheep can continue to benefit from proven effective treatment to safeguard against distressing diseases. Sheep are, of course, not the only source of skins to the leather industry. My hon. Friend mentioned cattle, which are also important—their skins can suffer from warble fly infection. In Great Britain, great progress has been made in eliminating warble fly in recent years—it has been eliminated. Unfortunately, recent imports of cattle have shown evidence of warble infestation. We acted swiftly to deal with those outbreaks; and national rules for combating the spread of the fly were speedily and fully implemented.
My hon. Friend will no doubt be pleased to hear that we are seeking additional trade safeguards from the Community to help protect our hard-won disease-free status, and that we shall do all that we can to preserve it. My hon. Friend also mentioned ringworm. I am sure that he is aware that drugs are available to treat ringworm, and it is up to the farmer to ensure that the condition is treated.
In conclusion, I once again congratulate my hon. Friend on the succinct and imaginative way in which he voiced his concerns about the leather industry. In these technologically advanced days, it is all too easy to forget the value and significance of traditional industries such as that one. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that the Government are seized of the need to do all they can to maintain the quality of the raw materials used in the leather industry, without burdening the industry with unnecessary regulations. We shall pay great attention to the issues raised by my hon. Friend, but he will be aware that farmers themselves also have an important and integral part to play in the process. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to watch the position extremely carefully.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past One o'clock.